Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Neville Ray for his thirty years of work in wireless network management, and to congratulate him on his retirement as T-Mobile's President of Technology and Strategic Network Advisor to the CEO.

Throughout his 23 years with T-Mobile, Neville has played a critical role in architecting the carrier's transition from 2G to 5G and leading a best-in-class team. He is responsible for the management and development of the company's wireless network, technology services, and technology operations.

Neville's colleagues recognize him as a strong, adaptable, and innovative leader. According to T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert. Neville ``takes the crown as the nation's overall network leader'' and ``has made T-Mobile's network a true competitive weapon.'' T-Mobile's 5G network was the first to offer coverage in all 50 states, largely thanks to Neville and his team, who anticipated that the 5G era would be won or lost on mid-band spectrum.

Neville has helped T-Mobile achieve numerous company milestones, including the first launch of Wi-Fi calling with a hotspot in 2007, the first launch of video calling using LTE or Wi-Fi in 2015, and the first-ever World Series 5G experiences in 2020.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Neville Ray for his career helping T-Mobile innovate and succeed, and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Duane Fladland for his many years of service for the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and to congratulate him on his retirement as SBDC's State Director.

Duane guided the organization through the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading a coalition of skilled advisors to help thousands of small businesses persevere through the crisis. Duane procured federal funding to relieve businesses owners, while also expanding local funding matching resources. He created the Center for Business Resiliency to mitigate the financial impacts of future business interruptions. Throughout his time as State Director, Duane helped the organization achieve their annual goals, including a yearly increase in our deliverables of over 60%. Duane's colleagues recognize him as a strong, adaptable, and resilient leader.

My staff and I have had the privilege of working with Duane on multiple occasions. Through his productive relationships with several elected officials, Duane has helped the SBDC gain exposure at both the state and federal level. His dedication, commitment, and leadership has pushed the organization to support small business owners across Washington state in an effective and human way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Duane Fladland for his career helping businesses grow and succeed, and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Teresita Batayola for her many years of service for International Community Health Services and to congratulate her on her retirement as ICHS President and CEO.

Teresita guided ICHS from only two neighborhood clinics to a regional health care network with eleven service sites. She also led ICHS through their COVID-19 pandemic response, navigating the implementation of testing sites and telehealth as well as vaccination. Her work has been instrumental in shaping ICHS into an organization that serves over 27,000 patients. Additionally, Teresita's community service is not limited to her work for ICHS. She has served as the Aging in PACE Washington Board President, was appointed by President Biden to the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and has brought together local leaders to push back against anti-Asian hatred.

My staff and I have had the privilege of working with Teresita on many occasions. I recently joined Teresita for a tour of ICHS's International District Medical and Dental Clinic to see and discuss the work she and ICHS are doing for health care access and equity. I have also worked with Teresita to secure Community Project Funding for the AiPACE Adult Day Center and Clinic in Beacon Hill. As a leader and advocate for her community about healthcare and addressing social determinants of health, Teresita's work has benefited many, especially in refugee and immigrant communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Teresita Batayola for her career expanding healthcare access to diverse communities, and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Housing Development Consortium for their 35 years of service and affordable housing advocacy within King County.

The Housing Development Consortium (HDC) is a nonprofit organization in King County that has supported countless housing organizations, businesses, and government organizations to meet the housing needs of people with diverse incomes. HDC is a nationally recognized leader in affordable housing advocacy, and their commitment to the Puget Sound region has made tremendous impacts. From fighting for increased funding for new low-income housing to maximizing opportunities for those living on a limited income, HDC continues to play an important role in affordable housing advocacy. Further, HDC pursues these goals through a lens of sustainability to reduce emissions and energy costs for residents. Their work makes our community a safer, better place for all who reside throughout the Puget Sound region.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the Housing Development Consortium and their critical work, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that the residents of King County have access to safe and affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 9, 2023, I missed a vote on the motion on ordering the Previous Question (H. Res. 5). I would have voted ``NAY'' on roll call vote No. 21.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Mr. Everett Coleman for his many years of service to the United States Congress and congratulate him on his retirement.

A Navy veteran, Everett served our country in uniform before serving as a civilian. For the last 14 years, Everett has served as a crucial member of the House Armed Services Committee's staff.

Everett's contributions to this committee and the country's national security have been immeasurable. He has worked countless hours, whether late at night or on weekends, to keep the committee running and prepared to fulfil its duties. As the lead for the committee's technology, Everett has served the over 60 members and 70 staff throughout the years with distinction. The Armed Services Committee would not have functioned without him. I can say unequivocally that the committee would not have passed consecutive National Defense Authorizations Acts (NDAAs) each year without the tireless work and support of Everett.

Since 2007, Everett has kept the committee on track. Everett's role on the committee has not been easy. I suspect that no one on staff has ever called to let him know that the network was operating properly and that all the systems were okay. Rather, Everett has stepped up to make last minute fixes to ensure that a hearing started on time and dropped everything to ensure staff had the ability to communicate while abroad. Everett was also instrumental in moving the committee to an all-digital process for the markup of the NDAA. Further, as the Congress grappled with how to safely continue operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, Everett played a critical role to ensure the Armed Services Committee continued to be able to communicate, access data, and most importantly, meet and conduct effective oversight, ensuring the enactment of consecutive annual NDAAs.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House Armed Services Committee, I extend our deepest appreciation to Everett for his dedicated service to the committee, the Congress, and the military and civilian personnel of the Armed Forces. We wish him well as he leaves the committee to enjoy his well-earned retirement.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and I may each insert in the Congressional Record not later than December 12, 2022, such material as we may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment and the motion to concur with the amendment on H.R. 7776.

(The contents of this submission will be published in Book III of this Record.)

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1512) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 7776, with an amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1512.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to urge Members to support this piece of legislation. I thank everyone who worked on this process. All told, from the beginning of it, to now, over 2,000 Member requests were considered in some form or another, either in committee, on the House, or as we worked with the Senate.

With that open, collaborative, and bipartisan process, we have produced, I think, an excellent product. First, and foremost, we support the men and women who serve in the United States military in this bill. Most specifically, we serve the people who are economically struggling the most by a 4.6 percent pay raise, increase in the basic housing allowance, increase in the basic needs allowance, making sure that the price of items at the commissary do not go up so much as to price people out of it.

We support the men and women who serve in the military in this bill, and that is the number one most important role that we have.

This bill also continues on the work that we did on last year's efforts to reform how sexual assault is handled in the military by including sexual harassment in the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the special victim prosecutor.

There is a laundry list of things we do to really improve the quality of life for servicemembers and to exercise our oversight.

This bill also contains a number of other oversight bills; the Intelligence oversight bill, the Foreign Affairs oversight bill, the Coast Guard authorization bill--authorization was the word I was looking for--as well as the Water Resources Development Act.

All told, this bill is Congress exercising its authority to authorize and do oversight of the executive branch on behalf of the American people; and I think that is enormously important.

We are a coequal branch of government. It is our responsibility to exercise that oversight and represent the people.

Now, obviously, the most direct, sort of blunt force way that we do it is through appropriations, the money we spend. That is incredibly important as well.

But the authorizing portion of what we do matters a great deal. It is our opportunity, as individual Members of Congress, to set policy for this country at the Department of Defense, first and foremost but, as I said, also in this bill on intel and foreign affairs and the Coast Guard and elsewhere. It is really important that we get that job done and we do it really, really well.

I can't go through every single item that is in this bill, but I can tell you that just about every Member of this House has something in this bill that is important for policy, important to their district. I know because they have been talking to me for the last 6 months about it.

This is important policy that makes a huge difference for the people of this body and the people of this country, and I would urge us to support it.

I want to say two more quick things before I yield to my partner-- actually, three more quick things before I yield to my partner, Mr. Rogers, on this.

First of all, I really want to thank him, the staff, and everybody involved in all of that. To field that many requests takes a lot of time. The staff on the Armed Services Committee has been outstanding, and we are a bipartisan staff. We work together in a collaborative process.

All of the committee members, Republican and Democrat, have worked well together. Heck, in this moment I will even say something good about the Senate. They worked well with us also in a bipartisan, bicameral way. I really thank them for putting that process together.

Second, I do want to just briefly address, there is always a lot of controversy about issues not within our jurisdiction and whether or not they go into the bill. What has to happen on that is the committees of jurisdiction have to agree. Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, you have got to get all four. If you get all four, great, we are happy to carry it. If you don't, we can't.

I know it is important to you. I know you wish we could, but we can't because we don't have the votes for it. So I hope people understand that as we work with them on those outside issues.

Lastly, I do want to address the vaccine issue, and I want to make a couple of things perfectly clear. Number one, the policy that the Department of Defense put in place in August of 2021 requiring servicemembers to be vaccinated was the absolute right policy.

It saved lives and it improved readiness for the United States military while it was in place because it was absolutely clear that that vaccine made an enormous difference in protecting people from the disease. It was the absolute right policy; that is number one.

Number two, servicemembers who refused to follow that order had to be disciplined. Orders are not optional in the United States military. You cannot function that way, and we are not going to undo that.

But number three, right now, today, what is it, December whatever, in 2022, a policy that says you have to have gotten the first shot, and that is what the policy is that we are undoing in this bill. It says that you have to have gotten that first shot way back in 2021, either one Johnson & Johnson shot or the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna deal.

Right now, the science does not support that that makes you any safer today; it just doesn't.

I urge the Department of Defense to go back now and look at that policy and think about what the right and best policy would be. But it does make sense to repeal that order from August of 2021.

Personally, I would have preferred the Department of Defense do it on their own rather than the legislature telling them to. But since they didn't, I think this makes sense, and I think we ought to do it.

Again, let me just conclude by saying this has been an excellent process. We have a nearly 4,000-page bill that exercises the authorizing and oversight authority of the United States Congress on behalf of the American people. We did it very well.

We have accomplished a lot in this bill. I think every Member of this body can vote for it and feel really good about that. So I urge you to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), the vice chair of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There are so many people to thank in this process, and we have done that, and there are a number of Members who are leaving committee, staff members who are leaving, as well. But I do want to take just a moment to thank three Members in particular on the Democratic side: certainly, Mr. Langevin, who is presiding over this appropriately; Ms. Speier; and Mr. Cooper, who are our three subcommittee chairs.

During the 4 years that we were in the majority, all three chaired subcommittees, and delivered as much consequential legislation on the Armed Services Committee as I have seen.

The leadership on all the different areas has just been invaluable. It will be very difficult to replace. Certainly, Jim's leadership on the Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems Subcommittee--the only thing about it is your subcommittee is a mouthful to keep up with. I would just say ``CITI,'' trying to remember what exactly it all stands for, but it is information technology, it is cyber, it is the guts of what makes our national security apparatus run, basically; the information systems that we have to make sure they are robust, effective, and protected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to myself.

Mr. Cooper, of course, more than anything brought us the Space Force, and his leadership on space has been invaluable.

Ms. Speier's leadership on personnel; I cannot imagine a more tenacious advocate for protecting the men and women who serve in our military than Jackie Speier. Her leadership has delivered real results and made a very strong statement.

All three of you will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I can't say it any better than the Speaker said. I think that was just an outstanding summary of the work we have done, why that work matters, and of the policy that we have put forward here.

Once again, we have come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to pass an excellent piece of legislation that reflects our values and supports the men and women who serve in our military. It gives us the opportunity to meet our national security requirements. It has been an outstanding process with pretty much everybody in this body participating in it in one way or another and producing an outstanding product.

I will close by urging all Members to vote in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023. I thank everyone for their work, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Garry Wade Owens for his many years of service as a civil rights advocate and public servant.

Garry Owens is a Seattleite from birth. During his senior year at Franklin High School, he was part of the Seattle chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, playing a pivotal role for African Americans in the civil rights movement. After his military service, he worked toward resolving discrimination and equity for

marginalized communities. He was a founding member of the University of Washington's Black Student Union and Seattle Chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1968, focusing on providing necessities and education to African American families and workers. He also worked for the City of Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods for 24 years as one of the first community organizers who helped the city with their outreach to underrepresented regions. He later became the manager for the Neighborhood Matching Fund, providing support to specific community projects.

In addition, he joined the Legacy of Equality Leadership and Organizing board in 1991 and traveled to serve as an agent of solidarity in Cuba, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and throughout the United States. He focused on community organizing, popular political education, and international networking to empower workers of color to have a voice and speak for themselves.

My office and I were pleased to have worked with Garry through his advocacy and are saddened to hear of his passing. He and his contributions to our community will be sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to remember Garry Owens for the achievements he made during his lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers at this time on this amendment and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time not to speak on the en bloc, but this is the last opportunity to speak about the bill.

We are going to have three other amendments after this en bloc, so I just want to do a quick closing and urge all Members to vote in favor of the bill.

You have seen the process play out. I think this has been an incredibly inclusive process, starting in the committee in a bipartisan way and moving to the floor, where we have had the opportunity for all Members to contribute and participate in this process.

I think we have a good product that is going to enable us to continue to exercise our oversight of the Pentagon, fulfill our duties as Members of Congress, and support the men and women of our Armed Forces in carrying out the missions that we ask them to do. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for his closing remarks.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge all Members to support the defense bill. I appreciate the staff and everybody who worked on the effort. I recognize the Rules Committee staff, the Armed Services Committee staff, the floor staff, and the Parliamentarians who are the ones who have to process those 1,200 amendments, figure out how to write them out, how to make sure we are doing it right.

I don't understand fully how you are able to do that, so I very much appreciate that you do, and we get a good product at the end of it. I think we have all participated in a good process. I urge Members to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 7900, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 7900) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2023 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7900.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. As most people know, we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act every year for 62 straight years, and I urge Members to do it again this year.

I will start by thanking Ranking Member Rogers and the minority. We have once again managed to work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft this bill in committee during a roughly 16-, 16\1/2\-hour markup in which we entertained roughly a thousand amendments and a whole bunch of different ideas and proposals to create this product.

I think the legislative process is enormously important. We continue it here with 1,200 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, 650, roughly, in order. I am told that is actually a new record for a piece of House legislation, a record we weren't necessarily looking to set, but it does reflect the participation in this process of this entire body of an incredibly important piece of legislation, and we can't lose track of that fact.

This is the bill that enables the Congress to exercise oversight of the Pentagon. In this year's budget, we authorize $850 billion. It is usually somewhere, by the time we are done, around a 3,000-page bill.

It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that gives us the power and the ability to exercise that important oversight authority of the Pentagon and Department of Defense.

We have done a lot of good work in this year's bill. I think the focus, as we go forward, is obviously the men and women who serve and making sure that they have the tools they need to do the jobs that we have given them to do.

We could have a robust debate about what those jobs should be, but I think we can all agree that once that debate is settled and the tasks are assigned, the men and women who serve must have the tools and the support from us that they need to do that job.

This year, it has been particularly challenging, given the rate of inflation. Our bill reflects that, giving some additional support to our servicemembers and their families to deal with housing costs and also additional bonus pay to deal with that inflation. So, we support the servicemen and -women through our financial support and through making sure that their needs are met.

The other big issue is making sure that the Pentagon is spending the money wisely. As many of you have heard, I have argued frequently that the amount of money is not as important as how we spend it. Over the course of the last couple of decades, we have struggled with the number of programs that have been over budget and underperforming. We have, over the course of the last 6 years, put in place critical acquisition reform and procurement reform to put the Pentagon in a better position to take advantage of innovative new technologies and, crucially, competition to make sure that we get a better product.

We are beginning to see the fruits of that success. In programs like the B-21 and the GBSD, whatever one thinks of those programs, they are on time, on budget, and actually meeting their requirements, which is a significant change. That is due, in large part, to a lot of the legislation that we passed here.

I think we have put together an excellent product. In particular, I thank my staff and also the Rules Committee staff. The Rules Committee staff had to sift through those 1,200 amendments, give them the attention that they are due, and make sure that the process worked. They did an amazing job working with our staff.

I thank my staff on the Armed Services Committee, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, and our bipartisan staff for doing an outstanding job.

I recognize one of our staff members not able to be with us today who is normally here. Sharma gave birth to her second child yesterday. She wishes she were here, but she is also, I think, pretty happy where she is. So, I want to pass along that congratulations.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 30, 2022.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

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

7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2023. 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.

7900 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,

David Scott,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the chair of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who chairs the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), the vice chair of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Substantively, I reiterate my initial remarks. I think this is a good bill that was put together. You have heard a lot of comments from the individual subcommittee chairs. Many other Members also contributed significant and important policy to this piece of legislation that gives us the opportunity to properly exercise oversight of the Pentagon, which is our job. This bill does an excellent job of that, and I think, as I mentioned, we have made some progress in recent years.

The one big point I did not emphasize sufficiently at the start of my remarks is how important innovation and new technologies are right now. I don't think there has been a time in the history of warfare where things have been changing as rapidly. We have certainly seen that play out on the battlefield in Ukraine but also in other fights that have happened in smaller conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Middle East.

You have to develop the new, best innovative technology, and as anyone would recognize, the Pentagon is not typically good at moving fast. It is a large bureaucracy. It takes them time to process ideas. What we have done is we have put forth innovative legislation to move that along faster so that we can develop the better technologies, take advantage of drone technology, take advantage of AI, and make sure that our systems are secure. That has really made a huge difference to make sure that we get the most out of the money we spend and that we are in the best position to have the technologies that we need. So, a number of these policies have made a huge difference.

I will use the balance of my time to thank six members of our committee on the Democratic side who are retiring at the end of this Congress: Congress Members Langevin, Cooper, Speier, Brown, Murphy, and Kahele. I thank them very much for their service. As you have heard many times, the cornerstone of this committee is our bipartisan approach and our commitment to regular order, to sending our bills through the normal process in committee, having markups, debates, and then doing the same on the floor in a bipartisan way, which makes an enormous difference. These Members have contributed to that. I will especially recognize a couple of Members because a number have served for a long time on the committee.

Jim Langevin is the chairman of the subcommittee with the really complicated name that I have to have written down to remember, but it has to do with cyber and intelligence matters. Jim has dove into these issues. When I talk, as I did, about innovative technologies, it is his subcommittee that focuses on putting us in the best position to deal with artificial intelligence, to figure out how to use directed-energy weapons and drones, to do the innovation that is crucial. Jim's knowledge level on this is above anybody in Congress. He has done an outstanding job over, I guess it is, 22 years as a Member of Congress and now a subcommittee chair. His leadership has been invaluable in those crucial issues.

Jim Cooper, also retiring, is a subcommittee chair. He is very responsible for getting us to properly focus on space. There is a lot of talk about the Space Force. Certainly, that is part of it, but that was never really the entire point. The point was that space has become crucial in modern warfare. Literally, everything we do gets shut down if we don't have robust access to our space assets. Recognize the importance of that and how much that has changed, certainly in the last 50 years but even in the last 10. Chairman Cooper has worked with now- Ranking Member Rogers, also a past chairman of that subcommittee, to make this happen. Jim's intelligence and leadership have made a huge difference in those issues.

Jackie Speier is retiring as the chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee. It is impossible to overstate the work she has done to look after the men and women who serve in our forces, most notably, of course, with her commitment to battling sexual assault and to getting the major sexual assault reform passed, which we passed last year, to set up a special prosecutor who will focus on sexual assault cases. That was a 10-year effort.

A lot of people, when they get involved in politics, they get frustrated

that things aren't happening. They don't happen quickly. They get frustrated by the whole process. I have come up with the saying that, in politics and public policy, you have to be patient and persistent. Nobody personifies that better than Jackie Speier. She was absolutely doggedly persistent in getting the changes necessary to help improve the way we handle sexual assault and on a wide range of other issues that have helped protect the personnel who serve in our military.

Lastly, I specifically thank Anthony Brown, a past vice chair of the committee who has worked so hard on diversity issues. We were able, 2 years ago now, to finally get passed and put in place a commission to change the names of the military bases in this country and facilities, as well--not just base names, but those buildings, streets, and a whole bunch of other things that had been named after white supremacist Confederate traitors. He did the work to get that through the entire process, all the way to the point of having to override the President's veto to get that done.

Now we have a commission that is working on this issue. Certainly, it is crucial that they change the names, but what the commission is doing is they have held hearings all across the country in the communities where these bases are named to talk about the history, about how we got to this point, what is it that we are actually talking about, how these bases weren't actually named immediately after the Civil War--they were named at the turn of the 20th century when there was an effort to reestablish white supremacy--to really educate and include the community in the process and, ultimately, in the names that were selected. That never would have happened without Anthony's hard work.

We have some outstanding members of the committee leading us this year. I appreciate their service. Again, I thank Ranking Member Rogers and the Republican staff. We have worked well together--not that we don't disagree. We absolutely disagree frequently, but we do so in a way that allows us to resolve those differences, which is the essence of how a representative democracy is not just supposed to work but how it must work if it is to survive. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of that process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill. It is an outstanding product. Please vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I too urge adoption of the en bloc amendments and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to get to a reasonable defense budget. Full disclosure: I don't support the effort to cut $100 billion from the defense budget. I think we have clearly articulated needs. But I think the President and the Department of Defense, when they put forward this budget, took that into account.

One of the things I have always been worried about on the Armed Services Committee is if we just give them more and more money, they won't spend it as well as they should. They will not have the fiscal discipline to go in there and make sure that the money is being spent wisely, which I have said many, many times is as important and, in many cases, more important than how much is spent.

Over the course of the last 20 years, we have not had a good record. Many programs have gone over budget and underperformed. We are getting better, but I think we need to live within our means.

The President put forward his budget. We ought to respect that budget and support it. It is more than enough to defend the country.

If we go back to the President's number, it is $813 billion, which is a significant 4 percent increase over last year's budget. It is not like we aren't spending money if we stick to the President's budget. I think that number should work, and I think that is the number we should stick to.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for offering that amendment and making the arguments she has.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I think it is incredibly important.

Mr. Garamendi outlined it quite well. There was a process to go through at DOD to determine what the budget should be. Once that process is done, we should respect that process, not allow everybody in the institution to say, ``Well, I would like to have more money.'' I can assure you that there would be unfunded requirements in every single aspect of government.

You have to make choices. That is what DOD does. That is what the budgeting process does.

What the unfunded requirements list does is it simply perpetuates the notion that you can never spend enough money. I submit that that attitude toward the defense budget--that whatever it is, it has to be higher--has a lot to do with all the inefficiencies, the lack of an audit, the number of programs that have gone overbudget and have underperformed, the number of programs that have never worked out the way we envisioned them.

If there was fiscal discipline in place, we would get a better result.

Allowing people to always ask for more, no matter what, undermines fiscal discipline. I also submit it undermines the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment has to do with the retirement of nine littoral combat ships.

The Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, wants to retire those nine ships. An amendment was added in our committee that does not allow them to retire five of those ships. My amendment would strip that and would allow the Department of the Navy to retire the ships they want to retire.

We just heard a lengthy speech about the wisdom of our various service Secretaries and how they know what they need. Well, the service Secretary and the Department of Defense know that they no longer need these nine littoral combat ships. We should not be blocking their effort to save money and retire them.

The biggest reason we have a problem with this is these ships are not that old. But they have also not turned out to perform the way they were expected.

In particular, they were supposed to have antisubmarine capability, and they were supposed to have demining capability. They have neither of those. They have also turned out to have significant maintenance problems and costs associated with simply operating them.

The Navy has determined that it is better to invest in newer, more modern, more capable platforms, and we are blocking their ability to do that. The littoral combat ship has not lived up to its expectations.

Now, let me be clear, it is an extraordinarily difficult time to figure out how you build the right systems. But throwing good money after bad doesn't make sense, and that is the primary argument for not allowing the Navy to do this. ``Well, they just built them,'' almost whether they work or not, ``why would we retire them after 3 or 4 years?'' Because they are not working as expected, and they are not cost-effective.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we adopt this amendment to allow the Department of Defense to do what they want to do: retire these ships and build a better, stronger, more capable Navy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I understand the gentleman has the right to ultimately close the debate, so I will reserve the balance of my time, unless he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in that time I will attempt to make three quick points.

Number one, in response to Mr. Gallagher, as he well knows, the LCS has literally no role in the counter China fight. It has no capability that will help us in dealing with China. So whatever your concern about China, LCS ain't going to deal with it. It may have capabilities elsewhere, but it wouldn't survive 2 seconds in a fight against China-- and we all know that--which leads to my second point.

The number of ships isn't the point, it is the capability of our overall systems. This amendment takes the money out of this and puts it into more munitions, which we desperately need, and puts money into more operation and maintenance within the Department of the Navy, which Congressman Waltz has correctly pointed out we also desperately need. This money is put someplace that is vastly better.

Lastly--I will come back to that first argument--the Department of the Navy is determined this is not where they should spend their money. But understand, we are hearing all these arguments about China, China, China, China--this is the point--build the capabilities and build the systems that can deal with the fight we face with China. The one thing you have to understand is the LCS is 100 percent not it.

Mr. Speaker, we can spend this money better and this amendment does that. I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.