Warren Davidson

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the amendment I have offered would prevent the Department of Defense from purchasing data that would otherwise require a warrant, court order, or subpoena. The amendment would also end unauthorized surveillance practices. The government is currently circumventing the Fourth Amendment by purchasing location data, internet browsing data, and other sensitive information. The so-called data broker loophole is a severe threat to the right to privacy in the United States. Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed, but we must defend our Fourth Amendment. Government surveillance programs are routinely misused and targeted at Americans. The FBI, in fact, admits it conducted 278,000 improper searches of American citizens in 2020 alone. If the government can buy its way around the Fourth Amendment, there will be few meaningful limits on government surveillance. We need to pass this amendment. It at least stops the Department of Defense from doing that inside the United States of America. Mr. Chair, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of my colleagues to get this amendment to this point and, frankly, the commitment to the work ahead. It is important for our national security, but the whole premise of the Department of Defense is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The way we go about that has to preserve the way of life that our Constitution establishes, that the Bill of Rights guarantees that our protections will exist, and we have a lot of work to do to restore the protections of our Fourth Amendment. This amendment is an important first step, and I ask all of our colleagues to unite and make it a fully bipartisan level of support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply requires a mission statement from the National Command Authority. We used to insist on a mission and an exit strategy before we committed to wars. Make no mistake, this is a proxy war in Ukraine. Russians have unjustly invaded their neighbor, and Ukrainians are rightly defending their country. The first thing the administration did was offer President Zelenskyy a ride. He said, in a very inspiring response: I don't need a ride. I need ammunition. Who couldn't be inspired by that? Before we spent $113 billion, we should have expected a mission. We still don't have a defined mission. Whether it is in public or in a classified setting is fine with this amendment, but it should be required. We should have done it up front, we should have done it subsequently, but we should at least do it now. Before we spend this other $300 million that is in this National Defense Authorization Act, we should require what every E-5 and above is able to draft. It is the least we can expect out of our National Command Authority. When we commit to something, the Nation should commit to it, not just our military and not just our checkbook, an open checkbook. Without a mission, we can't hold anyone accountable for failure, and we can't properly claim mission accomplished. We must have a mission. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires a mission. We have asked nicely, we have asked persistently, and they have given us no response, so there has to be consequences. We figure $300 million out of $113 billion is a small price. It is enough to get their attention, hopefully. Who knows? They can't account for billions of dollars at the Pentagon. Instead of holding them accountable for it, even firing anybody, we are giving them even more money. Now, I couldn't be more pro-military. I enlisted in the Army. I got the chance to go to our Nation's military academy. I came back as an Army infantry officer, served in the Ranger regiment. I love this country with a soldier's passion. We have got to put our country first. If we are going to spend money, we should at least demand a mission, and $300 million is small change. In fact, before this bill could even make it through the Senate, before appropriations could even come up, they could draft a mission. They could draft a mission today, and they probably have it. The trouble is, they have three or four versions of the mission. The mission to make sure this war doesn't spread to a NATO ally would be a just cause, but it is not clear that is what they are trying to do. They are not pursuing any kind of peace negotiation. The mission to require no Russians in Ukraine could be a just cause, but that is very different than a mission that says no Russians in Ukraine including Crimea. Each of those are radically different resource allocations. I want to know, if we are going to give resources, what mission are you asking me to fund? Here is the really radical one. Victoria Nuland from the State Department says that our mission is regime change in Russia, including war crimes tribunals for Vladimir Putin. Now, if that is our mission, we don't have resources for that fight. That would require us to be in the fight. That is fundamentally a declaration of war. That is an unlimited war of regime change, a war of aggression by the United States because we have not been attacked. Now, make no mistake, we are using a proxy. But isn't a proxy meant to facilitate a broader war with Russia? Unless we demand that mission, how do we hold them accountable for not growing it and expanding it? We must demand a mission. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from South Carolina talks about war criminal Putin. That makes me think he supports regime change in Russia, because that is what it would take to prosecute Vladimir Putin for war crimes. Now, I am not saying that he is not a war criminal. I am not saying anything he has done is just. It is not. The question is: Is that really the mission that we are trying to fund? The sequence is ready, aim, fire for a reason. It is not ready, fire, aim. It is not too late to pull back and do the rational thing here and commit to a mission so that we can be accountable, and we can hold this administration accountable, our military commanders accountable, and, frankly, our weak State Department accountable for actually accomplishing a mission. Hopefully, they succeed, and we can say: Well done. Mission accomplished. But they don't want to be accountable for the mission. That is why they worked so hard to oppose this rational standard that was always the cause. Post-Vietnam, we learned we commit to a mission, and we commit to an exit strategy. We abandon it at our peril. We are less free, less safe, and more burdened by debt because of it. We have to demand a mission.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the amendment I have introduced, amendment No. 40, simply requires that the Department of Defense study and report the health conditions arising in members of the Armed Forces after administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. We have important voids in the data collected afterwards. We moved development of this vaccine at warp speed, and the Department of Defense mandated that members get the vaccine, so we have a great ability to study these members. They have very consistent health checkups. They have very consistent requirements for predeployment, postdeployment, during deployment. There are lots of ways to capture data in the military population, and, frankly, it is overwhelmingly young, fit, healthy people that make up our military, so the study could be very important. It would be important to understand any long-term effects or healthcare needs in the vaccinated population, and we could learn from that process to develop future considerations, whether it is risk assessments as we mandate vaccines, or how to combat future health emergencies more effectively. The Biden administration forced our men and women in uniform to take this vaccine without really knowing the full effects which would have been great to know in advance. But given the pandemic, they made a decision that the risk was too great. Lots of us disagreed with that risk assessment. That is all past. At this point, we simply want to study how did it turn out? What were the effects? What have been the results? That is all the study does. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I am inquiring as to whether the gentlewoman is actually opposed to my amendment. For her to qualify as an opponent of my amendment she would have to speak in opposition to the amendment; what it does. My amendment does nothing about abortion. It simply requires a study of COVID-19.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I must say that I consider the opposition to this amendment, which no one raised an objection to the actual amendment that I am offering, dilatory. I think it could be objected to by the Chair and gaveled down, and we could just call the question, unless they are actually opposed to the amendment. They are debating something that my amendment doesn't do. It simply requires a study on the results of COVID-19. It doesn't say what the outcome has to be. It just says to study it, to come back to us and tell us: How did it turn out for the people who got vaccinated? Do they have any other health problems? Do they have better health? What is the outcome as a result of these folks being vaccinated? I just want a study of the vaccinated population. It is a very simple amendment. We are considering hundreds of amendments, so if the other side is simply looking for a way to filibuster and delay, I would appreciate them not doing it on this amendment and staying to the rules of the House. If they have an objection, then state it, but they object to something else and are using the time inappropriately in my consideration. I ask for the consideration of the Chair. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I haven't heard an objection to this amendment. I hope we can agree to move forward and conduct the study. We just want to know what the health effects were on the vaccinated population in the military so that next time we can make a better risk assessment and hopefully get it right. We will learn a lot from the military population that can surely help the rest of the country because they have much more consistent access to healthcare, much more consistent required checkups. I think the dataset can be very good. I hope we can get this study done. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on allied contributions to defense spending. The 1985 NDAA established an annual report from the Department of Defense on allied contributions to our common defense with the initial focus on NATO. Of course, the Cold War was going on then, but that continued until 2004. The DOD stopped producing this report as the Pentagon's priorities shifted to the global war on terror. Nevertheless, the report is an important one. NATO allies have an obligation to provide their own defense. We don't want there to be some misunderstanding that NATO membership has somehow bought war insurance and that America will either fight or fund your war. We will help you fight and win a war under article 5 and only then if Congress authorizes combat. We might authorize spending, we might authorize combat, but Congress is the body that declares our wars. We can do that better when we know whether our allies are promoting their own defense. If they are shortchanging their own defense, we might feel differently about the vulnerability. Weakness invites aggression. Unfortunately, many of our allies have invited that aggression. As Donald Trump cautioned Germany, as an example, you shouldn't be doing business with Russia. Look how it turned out. Now, this isn't simply the fault of Germany underfunding their defense or becoming totally dependent upon Russia. Russia took advantage of it, but Germany was naive enough to fall victim to it. It hasn't hurt Germany as directly as it has hurt Ukraine, but it all works together. Ukraine is not a NATO ally, but they are an ally. They are clearly paying a high cost for their own defense. Could we have worked differently and prevented this combat? Let us look at other areas around the world. As we look at our allies, whether it is Israel as an ally, Taiwan as an ally, our NATO allies, or others around the world, I think it is important that this report gets produced and we understand it. I think it is also important that, if appropriate, we share it in public so that our adversaries know that we have a very strong collective defense and a strong commitment. If we don't hold people accountable for it, we will inherently be weak, because their intelligence service will know. It motivates our allies to do the right thing. Since 2006, the majority of our NATO allies have consistently failed to meet their 2 percent GDP defense commitment. Even as a war is taking place in their own backyard, the United States remains the largest contributor to the war in Ukraine. The U.S. should not continue to subsidize the defense of NATO member countries who choose not to invest in themselves. Good data makes for good legislation, and this report would supply Congress with valuable information that is needed to make sound policy decisions that put America first. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the gentleman didn't raise an objection to understanding how much they are contributing. He implies he already knows. The world doesn't know, and I certainly don't get access to all of that information. I do know they are paying for their own defense, and some of them quite a lot. I do know that they have helped in the war in Ukraine, and they have certainly taken on a heavy burden with refugees. All of that is different in different places around the world. Our allies stating how much they contribute certainly helps us make policy. I hope all my colleagues will see through this as an attempt to avoid accountability for our allies. We shouldn't underappreciate them, but we shouldn't cover for them either. We should hold them accountable, and the American people should know they are stepping up, they are doing really well. You can state it in percentage of GDP. That is the obligation, 2 percent of their GDP, and yet the biggest countries with the biggest resources with very little debt, I might add, aren't paying their defense. In our case, we are borrowing from China to defend our country and, frankly, to defend lots of them and people that aren't even part of our NATO alliance. It is important that we pass this and we study it. Whether this amendment passes or not, we need to know it, and we need to hold them accountable for their failure to honor their obligations. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes section 217 which authorizes funds to NATO for the joint fund established for the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic Initiative with the acronym DIANA. NATO has suffered from major mission creep and bureaucratic bloat while separate entities like DIANA are tied closely to the innovation fund that was to launch in NATO in 2022. There are 22 allies listed as participants, and the United States isn't one of them. Meanwhile, there are numerous countries that are participating in this fund; Germany, Turkiye, Italy, Spain, et cetera, who already do not meet their 2 percent GDP commitment to fund their own defense. Why would we expect them to contribute fully to DIANA when they won't contribute the basic amount to their own defense, which is NATO's purpose, to defend. It is a defensive alliance. We have colleagues who support a new strategic purpose for NATO. It doesn't need a new strategic purpose. It isn't even accomplishing its own purpose to focus on its own defense. You have countries like Germany who have literally no debt. There is very little debt in their country. Meanwhile, the United States is borrowing money to fund things like this. We could fund it for our own country, but I don't know that we need to fund it on behalf of NATO. This program adds one more financial burden to the United States within NATO while European countries take a free ride off our efforts. There is no focus from the United States Government to make these countries pay for the commitments they made as part of being members of the NATO alliance. Since 2006, they have all avoided their basic financial responsibility. There is no reason to expand the financial obligations within NATO until they follow through and honor their commitments. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I agree that we should be working collaboratively with our NATO allies. In fact, we do. I was fortunate to get to serve in Germany at a time when the Cold War was at its height. I saw the wall fall while I was there, and I got to see people rushing to our side. They were not asking for more government. They were asking for more freedom. Germany is reunified, things we never thought we would see, but they are also spending their money on all sorts of things except their own defense. Now, they spend something. They are helpful. I don't want to underappreciate the good things they do, but we shouldn't continue funding initiatives together unless they honor their commitment. In fact, only 7 countries out of these 23 countries are paying 2 percent of their GDP. If we don't hold them accountable, why are they going to step up? They are not. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting our own country, making us weaker, less free, less safe, more burdened by debt, and we are not holding our allies accountable for paying their fair share. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this is an important signal to send to all our allies. We are, indeed, your allies, but we are not going to fund or fight your wars. You are not buying insurance for America to carry the load. We are a participant. We would love a collaborative relationship. The idea that they are doing something better in DIANA is encouraging, but they are not honoring the fundamental nature of the agreement, and that is a problem. We have to hold them accountable for doing just that. I don't understand why my colleagues object to doing that. I understand people are passionate about the DIANA program, and that is why I hope they are passionate about it. You have something maybe they care about. I don't know. We have got to send the message that you can't just underinvest in your own defense and count on America to bail you out. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, it is precisely the time to lean in and have your allies' back. If our allies won't do that now, when will they do it? There is a war on their borders, and they will not invest at the levels they have committed to as part of the treaty. If they won't do it now, when will they? How do we not hold them accountable for this? We have no defined mission, we have no accountability, no defined strategy. We just have an open checkbook. How in the world does this encourage a stronger alliance? It doesn't. I ask my colleagues to please support this amendment. Please hold our NATO allies accountable for doing what they said they would do. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 51 as the designee for Mr. Roy.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment expresses a sense of Congress. This doesn't even have teeth on it. It just asks nicely, please, NATO allies, would you contribute the amount that you said you would, please? It is a kind ask. It is a sense of Congress that you should do what you said you would do. NATO countries who choose not to invest in their own defense, specifically meeting the 2014 Wales Summit Defense Spending Benchmark, better known as the 2 percent GDP commitment, should be held accountable for that. That is all it is saying, you should actually do what you said you would do. In 2006, NATO defense ministers agreed to annually commit a minimum of 2 percent of their Nation's GDP on their own defense. According to NATO, this spending threshold ``serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defense. . . . '' In 2014, the NATO alliance adopted the ``defense investment pledge.'' At that time, only 3 of NATO's 28 NATO member countries were meeting their 2 percent defense spending commitment. At that time, the NATO alliance issued the statement: We agree to reverse the trend of declining defense budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds, and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities. Our overall security and defense depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. They recognized the problem, and they committed to change course back in 2014. The Senate ratified this pledge in 2014 with a ``yes'' vote 97-2. In 2022, NATO's annual report showed that only 7 of now 30 NATO member countries meet the 2 percent GDP defense spending level. Numerous NATO member countries use the United States security umbrella to evade their financial commitments to their own defense. There is a war raging on their borders, and they are still not stepping up. If not now, when? This amendment that I am offering now on behalf of Mr. Roy that I have cosponsored doesn't cut anything. It just says, it is a sense of Congress that you should do what you said you would do. It is a sense of what the Senate said 97-2 when they ratified it that, yeah, we agree with this pledge. The United States is doing it. Why in the world shouldn't our own countrymen expect the members of their alliance to do what they said they would do as a part of the alliance? Failing to do this makes our alliance weaker, it makes our alliance less secure, and it sets a horrible standard for any future ally. Mr. Chair, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I would just point out that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. I know some of my colleagues want to make them that, maybe so that we could already go to war with a country that would inherently involve Article V, or they would be admitted today because they are in a state of war today. However, they are not, so we aren't having NATO allies in bunkers right now hunkered down and having allies call them out. The surest way to wind up there is to continue to under-invest in our defense, and that is exactly what more than 75 percent of our NATO allies are doing. They said they would invest in their defense and they are not doing it. Do they have no shame? They expect us to carry the load? Are we going to fight and fund their wars? I mean, we did help a lot in World War I. We helped a lot in World War II. There were a lot of people that fought and died, not just Americans, to get there. But America is a great ally, and we are simply asking that they too become great allies. That is all this amendment does. It doesn't cut funding. It doesn't bail on them. It simply says, we expect you to do what you said you would do. We are just calling it out. You are not doing it. Please do it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doesn't deal with Ukraine, it deals with NATO. It doesn't say anything bad. It denounces people that don't do what they said. I denounce people that don't keep their word. Shame on you. You said you would do something, and you didn't do it. You should be held accountable for that. That is all we are saying. Seventy-five percent of NATO countries, the biggest, strongest, biggest economies, they are the ones that are underinvesting. There are some heroes out there like Poland or Estonia that are spending more than their share of their GDP. But the biggest, wealthiest countries in Europe are underinvesting, and it is time to hold them accountable. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIDSON

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