Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in strong support of this bipartisan defense bill that we successfully voted out of the committee just 3 weeks ago. The chairman and the ranking member mentioned some of the most important…
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in strong support of this bipartisan defense bill that we successfully voted out of the committee just 3 weeks ago.
The chairman and the ranking member mentioned some of the most important provisions in the bill, not only the overall top-line number, which represents a $37 billion increase over President Biden's request, but also a 4.6 percent pay raise, a 2.4 percent pay bonus for enlisted personnel to counteract the effects of inflation on low-income military families, the $500 million additional housing allowance to counteract the skyrocketing cost of rent on military families, as well as an additional $750 million to reduce the cost of food and other necessities for our servicemembers.
I think it is worth understanding why this is important, not only just in light of our overall duty to take care of our men and women in uniform at a critical time, but we also have a looming recruiting crisis on our hands.
I am very concerned about the inability of any of the services to meet their recruiting goals, and we are going to have to spend a lot of time thinking about that problem and how we fix it before we proactively lower standards because, at the end of the day, notwithstanding any advance in technology, it all comes down to the men and women who volunteer and risk their lives to defend this country.
It is about the warfighter. That is where we need to stay focused. It is also why I am proud that this bill includes many reforms to the professional military education process, with the intent of regaining our focus on warfighting so that our war colleges teach how to fight and win our Nation's wars.
This is a critical time for U.S. national security. Our enemies are on the march, and we are being asked to hold the line. It is absolutely critical that Congress stays focused on the defense of this country and does not allow the defense of this country to be politicized in the way other issues have, which is why I so very much appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member in setting that bipartisan tone, and I am very proud to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
A few things that don't make sense to me: One, on a bipartisan basis in committee, we included report language in this year's bill that tasked the Navy with reporting to us on how they can make the LCS more combat-capable in the Indo-Pacific, doing things from gearbox repairs, sustainment options, lethality upgrades, to putting an NSM on these ships to make it into a very capable platform.
Why would we not allow them to come back with that plan as opposed to proactively cutting Navy force structure?
Furthermore, my colleagues will argue that the Navy doesn't want these ships. Well, the Navy is cutting these ships as part of a divest- to-invest strategy because it has to budget against a FYDP that is far lower than what Congress is set to resource. So with a higher top line, the Navy can afford additional force structure. It is our job to exercise our constitutional oversight responsibility and add both the budget and force structure the Navy needs.
Furthermore, the Navy's ship building plan, such as it exists, that was presented to us, was a joke. The Navy is proposing to bottom out the size of the fleet to 280 ships in 2027, the worst possible moment when the window of maximum danger peaks in the Pacific. We should not blindly accept that plan. We have been playing this Lucy and Charlie Brown football game with the Navy since I came into Congress 6 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment would inject the D.C. mayor into the Title 32 chain of command. As a result, the President would be required to ask for the consent of the mayor to employ the D.C. Guard for Federal missions.
Not only would this set a harmful precedent for command and control of the National Guard units below the level of a Governor, it would create a series of dilemmas in the event that the D.C. mayor and the President disagree on the deployment of the Guard.
For example, if the mayor declined to give consent, the President would have to order members of the D.C. Guard to active duty, request the consent of a Governor to deploy members of their Guard units to D.C., or deploy Active-Duty servicemembers to D.C.
All of these options would come with their own distinct tradeoffs and potential for delay in the event of a crisis. Giving the D.C. mayor authority over the National Guard would only delay response time and create new areas of friction that we don't need.
It is not hard to see why members of the Armed Services Committee rejected this amendment on a bipartisan basis during the markup last month, so I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. Speaker, a few comments.
I mean, the fact that the House, in partisan fashion, has passed the D.C. statehood bill I think has no bearing on this because, of course, according to the Constitution, there is another Chamber that would have to weigh in for a bill to become a law.
Until such a time as that becomes a reality, this amendment makes no sense and puts that very big cart before the horse.
As my colleague from Georgia so eloquently reminded us, we should be in the business of adhering to the Constitution, not seeking to create end-runs around it.
Furthermore, the gentlewoman's earlier objection that we already have a process for a consultation, and, therefore, my objections aren't warranted, ignores the basic fact that with this amendment, we are setting a new precedent.
As the gentleman from Georgia clearly laid out, we are lowering the bar below the level of Governor and effectively giving a mayor the authorities that a Governor has right now.
That is not the same consultation process that exists at present. That is a new glitch in the matrix, one that should be avoided right now.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain my strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.