tv U.S. House of Representatives Amendments to Reduce Overall Amount in NDAA CSPAN September 23, 2021 2:22am-2:50am EDT
the gentlewoman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. ocasio-cortez: i offer amendment 40 to reduce the pentagon by 40%. when covid-19 and fallout is one of the greatest threats we face when record levels of unemployment, housing and health care crises are among us, the united states should be reducing its spending by 5% and prioritize the very needs of our communities at home. today, we can cut the defense authorize ace by 10% without any need to deny our servicemembers or families. we can free up to $77 billion to go towards fighting the covid-19 pandemic and much more.
mr. speaker, i urge support of this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time, for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized >> this amendment would strip $79 billion out of the bill. that would have catastropheic effects. we have been at war for two decades and orpb out everything we've got. we have to start replacing and modernizing to take on the threat from china. this will set us back on cleanup and remediation and other contaminated items and schools and child care facility and the list goes on. i urge all members to oppose
this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: skrafpl alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. ocasio-cortez: this could hurt our readiness? it is not the readiness but profit margins every major defense contractor has had to pay fines or setment tore fraud ormis conduct while getting $1 trillion in public funding. in defense contracts. i have seen this personally on my work on the oversight key and confronted them draining our resources. the $77 billion is not that hard to find. the pentagon could save $58 billion by eliminating obsolete weapons, like cold-war-era
bombers and missiles that are completely unsuitable. we could find $18 billion by preventing the end of year spending fees that leads contract money being shoveled out the door. the congressional research service has documented these spikes and set your watch to it. each september as offices at the pentagon go on a last minute spending sprees, we have increased our spending year after year and during a time when we have ended two-decade war there is no reason for us to be increasing our military spending and defense budget. we are not funding child care, health care, housing priorities and environmental crisis here at home. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alabama.
>> we are investing in those items and we are divesting of those $78 billion out of legacy platforms that will not be used in the future and applying that money towards those future platforms. i yield a minute and a and-a-half mr. mr. kay jar lee of tennessee. >> i rise in strong opposition to the pocan amendment, a 10% will lead vulnerable. the united states is facing daily threats from china, iran and we must fully fund our military so the u.s. has every capability necessary to deter those who wish to do us arm. the fiscal year 2022 has bipartisan support from the house armed services key already. with the approved budget on the
floor being $23.9 billion more than than the bare-bones budget. it was approved in a vote by 57-2 margin. our military leaders have spent the past year sounding the alarm before congress that our top competitors are closing the gap between themselves and the u.s. and in other areas like hyper sonic capabilities. this budget is necessary in order to maintain advantages over our enemies as technology changes rapidly. now is not the time to cut what we must spend to provide for our men and women in uniform. we must ensure that our men and women have every resource to keep the american people safe. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. ocasio-cortez: the pentagon is the only federal department that has never passed an audit despite this requirement being on the books for over 30 years. there are folks who are support of the current levels, the increase of skyrocketing spending. and i don't think a sing 8 american or member of my district that can say our child care needs are being met and health care needs are being met that our climate action that is necessary is necessary being met. our needs are not being met. and despite all of this rhetoric about the deficit and all this fear about government spending, for some reason, our defense budget is exempt from this conversation and we ask americans and people in this country year after year to engage in the magical thinking
that defense spending comes at no real cost, it does. it comes at the cost of our security. because when question do not have to go to school or go to work and count on child care for our children, it makes us less safe and not able to go to an emergency room or have our health care covered, we are less safe. the erosion of our social systems here domestically is a threat as well and that is happening because of our explosion in defense spending, the explosion in defense spending is coming at the cost of our domestic spending here. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> achieving or meeting the objectives that the gentlelady are not mutually exclusive. we should do both. and $3.5 trillion doesn't spend
a dime on defense. and we are in the process, the defense department has never passed an audit. we have had many agencies to task and this time, i would like to yield to the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher, a minute and a half. mr. gallego: i rise in -- professor gerhardt: the former -- >> the chinese communist party can make a move within the next six years. we could be facing a crises unlike anything we have seen. this assessment was incurred by the chief of naval operations
and the idea across the board 10% cut to the pentagon at a time when we are facing a serious national crisis makes no sense. the ranking member pointed out the irony and tragedy that they are going to spend $3.5 trillion and tell us we have an explosion in defense spending when it is a percentage. does anyone believe that releasing a press release we somehow ended a war? does someone believe the struggle is over because we have surrendered in that struggle? absolutely not. the irony that defense spending and compare the obama cut to the reagan-defense buildup not pause of missiles but increasing and it is health care.
so it is a matter what you are arguing is not true. and as for spending too much money on defense. when you stumble into war on someone else's terms and the best way to project weakness. we can achieve peace only through strength. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from alabama reserves. ms. ocasio-cortez: what we have experienced and seen in our last seen two-decade war is exemplary of the types of waste that goes on. we have seen a lack of oversight and run-away contractor spending with little oversight in what is on going and caught surprised on the end that all of this investment seems to not have panned out in the way or
invested in the way that the american public was led to believe all along. not only are these tremendous costs we laid out earlier but also this explosion in spending leads our public funding and militarizes every problem in our society and turns peace profl testers into targets of weapons of war. i urge support for this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment guts our bill which is, i'm certain, the gentlelady's intention. it is recklessly irresponsible. it would harm our service members and their families. i strongly urge all members to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. the question is on the
amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to request 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 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in part c of house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to offer amendment 41 as the designee to have ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment.
the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in part c of house report 117-125, offered by ms. jacobs of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. ms. jacobs: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: this amendment offered by my friend and colleague congresswoman barbara lee restores the ndaa to the original funding level requested by the white house, the pentagon and the chair of the armed services committee. specifically it would remove the rogers amendment which increased the authorization by $23.9 billion. when mr. rogers' amendment was offered during committee markup i voted against it and nothing over the last few weeks has led me to change my mind. mr. speaker, just three weeks ago we ended our military operations in afghanistan, america's longest war, and one
that started when i was in middle school. and yet what some are concluding from that is that what we need is more war. more weapons. and billions of dollars more than even what the pentagon themselves are asking for. so many of my colleagues who support police department rogers' amendment note the emerging threat from china as their reason to support the increase. even though very lit thofl increase is even relevant to china and most national security experts agree that making needed domestic investments is far more important to our competitiveness with china. instead this inflated budget seeks to sugar coat that for years we have been decreasing allocations for diplomacy and investing in new and unneeded weapons. we need to focus on what is achievable, what the real threats are, and what we actually need for national security. for the last 20 years we have been told we need more.
i think it's time to recognize that there are simply not military solutions turnover problem. i think congresswoman -- i thank congresswoman lee for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote yes with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. ronellers: rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognize. mr. rogers: i yield myself two minutes. mr. speaker, here we go again. this time they're stripping $25 billion in funding added by republicans and democrats on the committee. the gentlelady argues that the biden budget is sufficient for our national defense. i strongly disagree. the biden budget constitutes a cut of about $4 billion in real spending from last year. the budget cuts the number of navy ship, cuts the number of navy ships and destabilizes the industrial basement slashes procurement across the board. it guts missile defense. it leaves unfunded $25 billion
in combatant commander priorities. and it cuts the army, navy, air force and marines. at least they left the space force alone. it does all this while our adversaries, pecialsly china, are investing in military modernization. china increased defense spending by 75% over the last decade, 6% this year alone. they're leapfrogging us in capabilities like a.i. and hypersonics. and they're stepping up ma lean operations against america and our allies. what's the president's response to this? he proposes a budget that would cut funding to programs we need to confront china. it doesn't makence especially when he's looking to swell nondefense spending by a massive 16% this year. i urge all members to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: i yield one minute to the esteemed chair of the armed services committee, mr. adam smith. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized mr. smith: i want to get the numbers clear. the budge proposed by president biden was $753 billion. by supporting this amendment we support president biden's budget of $753 billion. which was a $12 billion increase over last year's budget. last year's budget, the last budget from the trump administration, only increased the defense budget that year by $3 billion. so a $3 billion increase last year was perfectly acceptable to my republican colleagues in the house and senate under president trump. a $12 billion increase this year is not. so the numbers are being dramatically, just presented here as some kind of cut when it's actually a bigger increase that trump -- than trump did in his last year in the white house. let me make clear. i see the threats. i do agree with my republican colleagues on that point. i don't support the previous amendment that does a $75 billion cut. i understand the threat environment and i know that we need to modernize to meet that threat environment but the other
thing i see is decades of waste and wasteful expenditures. on programs like the f-35, on the ford class carrier, can i get an additional 30 seconds? we spent money in a very imprudent way. we have got to instill discipline at the spoang we get value for the dollars that we spend. simply giving them another $25 billion does not do that. $753 billion is enough. it's even better if we actually start spending it wisely, intelligently and effectively. that doesn't happen if we -- you know i'm a little short, can you give me a little more money? i love the winston churchill quote. gentlemen, we are out of money, now it is time to think. that's the type ofties plin we need at the pentagon, not just to give them a blank check every time they ask. the president's budget is sufficient to meet our needs. i urge support of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california
reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized mr. rogers: at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to a real leader on the armed services committee, the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee, mr. wittman of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, republican leader. similar to the previous amendment, i believe this amendment is extremely misguided. in fact, in march 24 of this year, i invited both ms. lee and mr. pocan to attend a classified brief on the existential threats we face in great power competition. mr. speaker, instead of taking me up on that offer, they continue to turn a blind eye. the chairs of the defense spending reduction caucus don't want to learn about what the threats are. they don't want to learn more about the critical capabilities that would be out of the hands of war fighters if this amendment were to pass. i can stand here and tell that caucus about how this plus up has $9.8 billion in procurement that's indirectly to china,
building ships to keep up with china. or i can tell them there's $3 billion for sustainment operations to allow war fighters to conduct global operations including humanitarian operations in places like haiti. or i can tell them there's $3. # billion for military construction to improve facilities in districts across the country. to make sure our service members aren't working in rundown facilities. i can tell there's $5.2 billion for research and development that assures our future service members will have what they need to, when called upon, to do the job or to fight to victory and come home safe. but i don't think any of that is going to resonate because these progressive members don't want to learn about the existential threats we face. these far left members just want to play progressive politics and that means weakening our national security. for the rest of my colleagues here today, this plus-up is good for national security and good for this country. you can ask any service brnch chief or combatant commander because we've asked them and
they told us these are things they need going forward. i urge every to vote against this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. jacobs: can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 1 3/4 minutes remain, the gentleman from alabama has two minutes. ms. jacobs: i yield one minute to the distinguished representative from new york, ms. ocasio-cortez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ocasio-cortez: i rise in support of amendment 41 which would cut from the defense appropriations bill. there were accusations that this is about progressive politics but this bill allocates $25 billion more than president biden even requested. so what we should be doing is sticking to the plan, giving the president of the united states what he determines is necessary for defense spending and not a dime more. i yield back to the gentlelady
from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from beasm is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to one of our outstanding freshmen on the arm armed services committee, mr. karl. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. carl: i rise today to oppose this amendment. there's several different ways to look at this amendment. the budget that we got from the president was before our problems in afghanistan. we're asking for $25 billion to replace $8 obillion to $85 billion we left on the ground for taliban to fight us back. so i ask that we keep an open mind on replacing that equipment, if nothing else. it is critical to pass this bill which includes bipartisan increase. i repeat, bipartisan. how many times do you hear that word? i've been here nine months and i
can probably count that on one hand. bipartisan increase in spending to counter threats and project u.s. strength around the world. this amendment would limit readiness and the needed capabilities to counter these threats. passage of this amendment would basically shortchange our military at a time when we need -- they need our support more than ever. i'm proud to have worked on this bill with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. to ensure that our military is fully funded for our men and women in uniform and the resources they need to protect and defend the united states of america. folks in my district in south alabama work hard every day to support the military readiness of this country. unlike president biden and his allies in congress, alabamans understand how important it is to fully fund our military.
i urge my colleagues to support our armed forces and oppose this amendment so i turn my time back to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. jacobs: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has the right to close. so the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: ok, great. i hear my colleagues on the other side talk a lot about the need from afghanistan. what's interesting is that in the continuing resolution that this body passed just yesterday, there was additional supplemental funding for afghanistan and yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to vote against it. i also hear them talk about the threats and the briefings that supposedly we were not in. i sit on both the foreign affairs and armed services committee. i assure you uf i've been to every single one of the classified briefings on the threats. i am very aware of the threats. we need to dispel the notion
that our ability to respond to threats depends solely on the size of our military. i'm honored to represent san diego they don't need a larger budget but one that takes their needs into account. housing free of mold, child care, housing for their spouses, and a government that goes through every diplomatic channel before making the decision to send them to war. earlier this month, vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general john heiden asked, do you think any taxpayer would pleef that for $700 billion a year we can't have a great defense? we should be able to and it's crazy that we can't. he's right. it is crazy and more of us need to be willing to say what everyone knows is true. we don't need to spend money, even the pentagon themselveses are not asking for. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. the underlying bill before this body, f.y.2022 national defense
authorization act, would increase spending by 3% over inflation, a modest increase. it passed our committee with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. this amendment guts the bill.11. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from massachusetts, congresswoman clark. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 105 printed in part c of house report 117-125 offered by mr. bowman of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from new york, mr. bowman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bowman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer a commonsense, good government amendment that has already passed this house on a bipartisan basis. decades ago, congress recognized that there's an inherent conflict of interest when elected