National Strategy to Utilize Microreactors for Natural Disaster Response Efforts Act

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.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan), the vice ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would inquire if the gentleman has more speakers. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

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.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no speakers. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I once again urge adoption of en bloc package No. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2670.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2670, the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

H.R. 2670 represents a truly bipartisan bill. I thank Ranking Member Smith for his tremendous help in moving this bill through committee. Congress has the constitutional duty to provide for our common defense. Every year, we fulfill this duty by passing the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA provides our warfighters the resources and authorities they need to provide for the defense of our Nation and the security of our allies around the world.

That is critical because the threats we face today are more complex and serious than they have been at any point in the last 30 years. Topping that list is an increasingly aggressive China.

Ranking Member Smith and I recently led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. What was clear from our meetings was that the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party is real and represents the most pressing national security challenge we have faced in decades.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA was built with that underlying goal of deterring the Chinese Communist Party in mind.

It provides new authorities and speeds the fielding of innovative new technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonics that will give us the advantage in a conflict with China. It strengthens our security partnerships with Taiwan and other Pacific allies.

It fully funds and expedites the modernization of the nuclear deterrent and builds a stronger and more capable missile defense. It protects the U.S. military bases, critical infrastructure, and academic research from Chinese encroachment and espionage.

It builds the logistics networks that the Pacific military needs to carry out the operations against China. It includes new authorities to retool and revitalize the industrial base to ensure they can deliver the systems we need to prevail in any conflict.

Reorienting our defense to deter the threat from China will be an expensive endeavor. We knowledge there are limits on what we can afford to spend, that is why this NDAA is hyperfocused on rooting out waste in the DOD. If weapons systems are not responsive to the threats we face, we cut them.

In fact, the NDAA includes nearly $40 billion in savings from cutting systems that can't survive a conflict with China and by reining in programs that have grown out of control.

We also require the DOD Inspector General to review major defense programs for waste, and we create a new special inspector general to oversee all

Ukraine aid. In the face of growing threats from China, it is critical we restore the military's focus on lethality.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA does so by bringing to an end divisive policies implemented by this administration that have hurt recruiting, unit cohesion, and military readiness.

While I believe this will go a long way toward resolving the recruiting crisis we face, we also need to improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. The NDAA does that by providing for the largest pay raise in 30 years and authorizes bonuses for junior enlisted personnel.

It increases allowances for housing and basic needs to counteract the growing costs for food and housing. It authorizes $200 million more than the President requested to build new barracks and family housing.

The bill expands access and significantly reduces the cost of childcare for military families. It makes it easier for military spouses to find jobs when servicemembers transfer stations.

Finally, it improves the quality of military healthcare, especially mental health services for our servicemembers and their families.

This bill passed out of committee 58-1. That is the definition of a bipartisan bill. It will enhance congressional oversight of DOD and it will improve the quality of life of our servicemembers. It will help build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter the Chinese Communist Party and our other adversaries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2023.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2024. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Agriculture.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Agriculture does

not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject

matters contained in the bill that fall within its Rule X

jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name

members of this committee to any conference committee that is

named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

2670 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the vice chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), who is the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who is the chairman of the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), the chairman of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), my friend and chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), my good friend, and the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), my friend and colleague, and a freshman member of the committee who is doing an outstanding job.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, the ranking member did a great job of outlining how important this bill is and emphasizing the fact that we don't all agree with what is in this bill. It is a compromise process.

We are in an institution where we have divided government. Neither side is going to get everything they like.

I represent a rural, very conservative district. If all I had to worry about was my perspective, this bill would look a lot different, but I am not the only person that gets a say-so.

We have a history, and a very proud history in this body of finding a way,

for 62 consecutive years, to come together, no matter which party is in control of the White House, no matter which party is in control of the House or Senate, to find a way to put our men and women in uniform ahead of everything else and get a national defense authorization bill passed.

Our committee demonstrated, once again this year, with a 58-1 vote, that that priority is still the priority.

I am very proud of this bill. It is not everything I like. I hope that, in fact, once we finish this amendment process, it looks a lot like it does right now because the ranking member is correct. If this bill were put on the floor for a vote today, it would get much more than 350 votes in my opinion, so I am proud of it.

I do want to take a minute to thank our staff. I can't overstate how much work has gone into this process. As the ranking member mentioned, we had over 1,200, 12 or 1,300 amendments filed in committee. We had, I believe, over 1,400 filed here for the floor.

The staff has done an incredible job over recent months to get us to where we are. They continue to work in a great bipartisan fashion to advance this product.

The Rules Committee has been very helpful to work with, and I appreciate all of these individuals and what they do for our country.

This is a good bill. I urge Members to vote for it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 582, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was just going to tell the gentleman that I have speakers that aren't here, so I am ready to move on, as well. I appreciate the ranking member. He has done a great job. He has been a great partner in this process, and I can't overstate how highly I think of him.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the en bloc amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong), my friend and colleague and an outstanding member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama does not wish to seek recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), a friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), another outstanding member of the Florida congressional delegation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan efforts of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith to pass this year's NDAA. The base bill before us today represents a strong bipartisan accomplishment that was crafted and passed out of committee with a 58-1 vote. I commend Mr. Rogers and Mr. Smith for their skillful, balanced approach, ensuring a bipartisan outcome from committee markup.

Today, that is the clear path forward for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to focus on germane amendments that expand our national defense capabilities and readiness, not divisive, partisan poison pills that distract from the mission of the NDAA, which is to provide a common defense.

Mr. Chairman, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution mandates that Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy. The Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee's work clearly meets that mandate. Our mark makes clear that our maritime nation will maintain its role as the most formidable sea power in the world.

It authorizes procurement of 10 battle force ships, building on the steady investment in shipbuilding that this subcommittee has consistently authorized in prior years and places a strong emphasis on maintaining superiority of our undersea fleet. Specifically, our mark authorizes $16.5 billion for submarine procurement, fully funding the Columbia- and Virginia-class submarine programs, with an additional $743 million investment in the workforce and supply chain of our national submarine industrial base which, by the way, is growing day by day, picking up the pace of production since the depths of COVID.

We also included multiyear procurement authority for the next block of Virginia-class submarines, totaling 13 submarines in the next 5-year contract. This sends a clear signal to U.S. industry to increase our production cadence above two submarines per year to bolster our Navy's inventory, as well as supporting the trilateral AUKUS agreement. That historic centerpiece calls for the U.S. to assist the recapitalization of Australia's undersea fleet with conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, including the sale of three Virginia-class submarines in the 2030s.

Adopting this measure is a healthy, serious signal of commitment to AUKUS as other committees in Congress begin their work to act on the legislative framework necessary to execute that program.

This bill also requires the Navy to complete the design for a new- build sealift vessel program of 10 ships which will be modeled after a cost-effective commercial practice now happening in real time at the Philly Shipyard to boost domestic shipbuilding right here in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, particularly Chairman Trent Kelly, who has been an outstanding leader of this panel and a great friend. I commend him for his bipartisan approach in his first year as chair that all members have appreciated.

I also thank the outstanding staff--Phil MacNaughton, Ian Bennitt, Kyle Noyes, Kelly Goggin, and Ethan Pelissier--who have all worked so hard on this bill and getting us here today.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in working to keep this bill true to the bipartisan spirit that the House Armed Services Committee showed in passing a strong defense authorization bill and reject extreme amendments that will threaten its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to honor one of the greatest heroes our country has ever seen in combat: Major James Capers from Lee County, South Carolina.

Many may not know the story of Major Capers, but his heroic actions during the Vietnam war led him to become the first Black Marine Corps officer nominated for the Medal of Honor, where he ultimately received the Silver Star.

He is not only a hero because of his service in the Marine Corps but also for his unwavering service in the special operations community. Born in Bishopville, South Carolina, during the era of Jim Crow, Major Capers willingly enlisted in the military to serve a nation that did not always have his best interests at heart. That, in itself, is heroism.

After his enlistment, Major Capers was soon selected to join the elite Force Recon Marine Unit, where he excelled. He became the first African American to get a battlefield commission in the Marine Corps Force Recon and was promoted from staff sergeant to second lieutenant, giving him control over the unit.

He is a natural leader. He is a father figure to Team Broadminded, a specialized group of Force Recon Marines. Capers and Team Broadminded were routinely selected to go to the most dangerous and clandestine missions in Vietnam.

Serving in five major campaigns in Vietnam, Major Capers' missions included a POW rescue ordered by President Johnson, amphibious assaults in the DMZ, recovery of a B-57 rumored to have nuclear bombs, and search and destroy patrols in Phu Loc. Team Broadminded conducted these covert missions and countless more, many of which nearly took the life of Major Capers.

In the fall of 1967, still recovering from combat injuries, Major Capers was selected to represent the United States Marines in a national recruiting campaign. A trailblazer for African Americans in the Marine Corps, Major Capers' image, his picture, became the Marine Corps' most popular recruiting campaign.

Sadly, Mr. Capers lost his wife and son to cancer, both of whom are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He still regularly receives visits from his fellow soldiers and other young marines and has served as a mentor for decades in the Marines' special forces community.

Major Capers is soft-spoken. His commendations offer an inspiring view of heroism and self-sacrifice. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor. He has been awarded the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and three Purple Hearts.

Major Capers exemplifies what it truly means to be a hero. It is not the medals but someone who stares adversity in its face and is willing to sacrifice his own life for those of his brothers next to him.

It is my hope that every person of future generations can see and hear the story and be willing to do what he has done, which is to be a hero.

For these reasons, I have offered two amendments to this NDAA. The first would authorize the President to award Major James Capers, Jr., the Medal of Honor for his acts of valor as a member of the Marine Corps during the Vietnam war. The second amendment would establish that it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy shall name a vessel of the United States Navy the USS Major James Capers, Jr.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor and privilege to recognize a true American hero, Major James Capers.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act as passed out of the House Armed Services Committee.

While this bill includes some provisions that are not in line with Democratic priorities, it does represent a truly bipartisan product that was overwhelmingly supported by our committee. I thank Chairmen Rogers and Lamborn for working with me during our markup process, particularly on critical areas such as restoring funding for critical National Nuclear Security Administration efforts on nonproliferation and National Missile Defense policy.

Overall, I am proud of what is in this bill. It adds critical oversight to the nuclear weapons modernization enterprise, and while I firmly believe this world would be a better, safer place for our children without nuclear weapons--a view shared by many of us--the reality is that our nuclear deterrent is a key component of strategic stability so long as we have determined adversaries unwilling to engage in serious discussions of arms reduction.

Given that sobering reality, I support the administration's nuclear modernization plans, but I continue to have serious concerns about requiring the U.S. Navy to develop a nuclear-capable sea-launched cruise missile, as this bill would require. I believe we need to better understand the impacts to both the Navy and NNSA before we direct a program of record.

Across space, missile defense, and hypersonic weapons, this bill advances key technologies and capabilities while also requiring more in-depth study on how these systems will contribute to a future conflict and impact strategic stability.

I want to particularly call out Chairman Rogers' noting the $40 billion of cuts to old weapons systems we don't need to make room for the new. That is politically tough to do, and it is incredibly important that we accomplish it.

While this bill largely represents continuity and bipartisanship, my ability to support it going further depends on what a small group of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might try to add on to it. Targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion; reproductive and women's rights; and the LGBTQ+ community, in addition to cutting off our assistance to Ukraine, are areas that I cannot support in a bipartisan bill.

Over hours of politically motivated debate attacking these programs, the majority offered zero evidence that they actually hurt recruiting. Indeed, what evidence is available tells the opposite story. Good luck recruiting women if they can't get healthcare based on the whims of which base they are assigned. Good luck recruiting minorities if they think they won't be respected in the service.

Finally, I will take this opportunity to again thank our subcommittee staff, Ryan Tully, Whitney Verett, Peter Schirtzinger, Maria Vastola, and Zach Calderon; my personal staff, Caroline Jones; and our Navy fellow, Kurt Shulkitas.