[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 120 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3495-H3501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2670, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 583

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 2670) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense and for military construction, 
     and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 583.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported out a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for further 
consideration of H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2024, or NDAA, under a structured rule. It makes in

[[Page H3496]]

order 80 amendments for consideration on the floor, and it provides for 
one motion to recommit.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed a rule setting the 
parameters for general debate on H.R. 2670 and making in order 289 
amendments. At the time, we made clear that the work of the Rules 
Committee was not yet finished. There was additional work that was left 
to be done, additional considerations to be had, and additional member 
priorities to take into consideration.
  After a robust discussion, we reported out the rule that is before us 
today. Taking up this rule will allow us to advance our work forward 
and will move H.R. 2670 toward a vote on final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I know some in this House will express frustration with 
the process. Yes, perhaps it would have been more convenient for us to 
have done our work more quickly.
  As this House is well aware, the NDAA is one of the most critical 
pieces of legislation the House considers each year. It sets overall 
policy for the Department of Defense and the armed services and allows 
Congress to set our defense priorities for the year. Perhaps most 
importantly, it authorizes spending levels on national defense for the 
fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, on a bill that is this critical to the Nation, it is 
much more important for us to get things right rather than to do things 
quickly. When dealing with national defense, we have a sacred 
obligation to give the American people our best efforts. Although this 
may have taken a bit longer than anyone, including myself, would have 
liked, I am proud to say that the rule fulfills that obligation.
  I like to think of this, Mr. Speaker, as a process where the House 
has been working its will. Frankly, we will have a pretty spirited 
debate here, I suspect, but it is worth noting that the underlying bill 
that came out of the House Armed Services Committee is pretty much 
intact. In other words, it has been changed very little in the 
amendment process yesterday, and I would argue it will be changed 
relatively little by the amendment process today.
  The majority of the items that we deal with today are going to shift. 
These aren't going to be straight partisan debates in many cases. My 
friend, Mr. McGovern, and I will probably be on the same side when it 
comes to helping Ukraine in what we think is a very important struggle. 
We will probably be on different sides when we come to cluster 
munitions and whether they should or should not be used. 
Uncharacteristically, I will be on the President's side, and my friend 
will have a different opinion on that.
  I say that just to say that that's how this place is supposed to 
work. You move back and forth, you pick the right decisions, and at the 
end of the day, there will be a final product and we will have a 
straight up or down.

                              {time}  1230

  Before anybody gets too elated or too disappointed, I will remind 
everyone that it is not as if this is the last day. This is a vehicle, 
if it passes, that we will take into conference, and that will be a 
conference between a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and it will 
involve a Democratic President.
  Mr. Speaker, I say all that to say that I suspect the process will 
continue to change the product as we move along. Again, I wouldn't be 
too giddy if I won today, and I wouldn't be too disappointed, no matter 
what your particular issue is, if I lost. I do think it is critically 
important that the vehicle move and that we push forward and sit down 
and work with our colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda in the 
Senate, and work with the President of the United States at the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We need to make sure that we do--for the 
63rd consecutive year--what we have done for 62 years, and that is 
provide for the common defense of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth remembering that this is going to be 
a bipartisan product at the end of the day. There is no way a 
Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President are 
going to do anything on any issue that is not essentially bipartisan. 
That is the way the process works.
  No matter what is happening at a given moment, I think we are 
preordained to come to an agreement that broadly reflects compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had two very late nights at the Rules Committee, 
and I thank particularly my friend, the ranking member, and each and 
every member of that committee for putting in the hours that it took. I 
thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle who worked really, really 
hard.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff of the House, particularly our 
overworked stenographers that were staying there late at night to make 
sure that we got our job done.
  Again, I credit my friend, the ranking member, for this. We have had 
the good fortune to serve together on this committee for a long time. 
We had a contentious debate last night, but it was always a civil 
debate and it was always a professional debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the tenor he set for our committee when he 
was chairman. I am proud of the manner in which he approaches his work 
each and every day. I am very proud to have the opportunity to work 
with him in the House.
  Again, we will have our differences today--fair enough. I thank my 
friend for the kind of committee member that he is and, frankly, his 
commitment to the institution. I say that about each and every member 
on the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and about their 
staff and about the staff of the full House that facilitates our 
ability to work together and produce a product.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I light up the Republican Conference for an 
absolutely awful process that made a series of offensive amendments in 
order and blocked some very reasonable amendments, I want the record to 
reflect that I have the deepest respect and affection for the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). He always sounds reasonable, in part, because 
he is a reasonable person. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by Members 
who are not reasonable, who are not rational, and who are not fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment that he gave me. Dealing with 
him is always an exercise in civility and there is mutual respect here. 
I appreciate him. I appreciate the staff on both sides of the aisle who 
were up until 2:30 in the morning last night as we were dealing with 
this rule. I regret very much the process that has brought us to where 
we are right now.
  Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week the Rules Committee was 
unexpectedly called back at 11 o'clock last night. We sat and waited 
for over an hour for the meeting to actually get underway, all because 
Republicans couldn't get their act together.
  Republicans had to have yet another backroom meeting, another 
midnight seance to resurrect this rule because a dozen or so far right, 
MAGA wing nuts once again threw a fit and hijacked the bill when they 
realized they weren't going to get a bill that was perfect to them.
  It should go without saying, but it is outrageous that a tiny 
minority of Republicans is getting to dictate exactly what amendments 
come to the floor. It is outrageous that the Rules Committee last night 
managed to mess up a bipartisan bill and put it on a path toward 
becoming a hyperpartisan one by loading it up with every divisive 
social issue under the Sun. Here is my word of wisdom to Republican 
leadership: When you have a razor-thin margin in one-half of one branch 
of government, you don't get your way on everything. Democracy means 
compromise. Divided government means compromise. Compromise means you 
don't get everything you want. There has to be a give and take.
  I have to admit that I have never in all my time here experienced an 
NDAA process as outrageously bad as this one. This bill passed out of 
the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 58-1. Let me repeat 
that. It passed with a bipartisan vote of 58-1.
  Looking at how extreme most of the Republican amendments are that 
were made in order, I would be surprised if

[[Page H3497]]

this bill can even pass the House. I fear what this final bill is going 
to look like because of the amendments they are making in order today. 
This is honestly a disaster. I never ever want to hear lectures about 
process ever again.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was chairman, Democrats made in order over 650 
amendments. Democrats made in order over half of all amendments 
submitted because we believed in the radical idea that we ought to 
actually do our job and debate things.
  Republicans in this NDAA have made in order fewer than a quarter of 
all the amendments submitted. In fact, despite a record number of 
amendment submissions this year, they made in order fewer amendments 
than every Democratic-led NDAA.

  What is worse, these are the worst of the worst amendments. They 
blocked dozens and dozens of commonsense ideas, but they paved the way 
for the most radical amendments.
  In the rule that we are considering today, they made in order 70 
Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and get this, drum 
roll, please, 4 Democratic amendments.
  Some of these amendments made in order were submitted minutes before 
we held our markup. For all my Republican friends who rant and rave 
about how important it is to provide enough time for members to read 
and understand what they are voting on, we had minutes.
  As I said, it is not just the number of amendments they are allowing 
to come to the floor, it is the type of amendments.
  The amendments this rule makes in order are so extreme that it will 
be a wonder how Republicans will pass this bill if the amendments are 
included in the final version.
  We are all supportive of putting more amendments up for votes. That 
is how this body should work. When Republicans block Democratic 
amendment after Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment, and 
then make in order dozens of the most extreme Republican proposals, 
they are not trying in good faith to pass a bipartisan bill. They are 
not being intellectually honest. They are merely serving up red meat to 
the most extreme fringe of the Republican base in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example. Many of us supported a 
bipartisan amendment to allow an up or down vote on whether or not the 
United States should transfer cluster bombs to other countries. I 
personally do not think this country should be giving cluster munitions 
to any country because they can harm civilians, and they do harm 
civilians.
  At the last second, our amendment was cut from the rule and replaced 
by an amendment that would only prevent the transfer of cluster bombs 
to Ukraine. That is really puzzling to me because when the Republican 
chair of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, and the ranking 
Democrat of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, I asked them 
a specific question: whether or not they would allow this bipartisan 
amendment banning cluster munitions to be made in order. Do you know 
what they said? They had no problem with making it in order.
  To have it all of a sudden removed is just puzzling to me. Why do we 
have hearings--why do we solicit answers on basic questions like: Do 
you think this would be a good thing to debate on? Are you okay 
debating on this amendment?--if these hearings mean nothing?
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is being offered by Congresswoman 
Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been vocal in her opposition to 
supporting Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression. What is 
this all about?
  We want to prevent cluster munitions from going to any country, 
Ukraine and other countries. Why the narrowing down of this amendment? 
Why give this amendment to somebody who I don't believe cares about the 
impact of cluster munitions but is only interested in undermining our 
policy toward Ukraine?
  Forgive our skepticism in thinking that this isn't really about 
cluster bombs for the new amendment sponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked for both amendments to be made in order. I 
thought that was a fair deal, right? Keep the amendment that we 
originally had dealing with you can't send cluster bombs anywhere, and 
you can keep the Marjorie Taylor Greene one. Let's have a debate on 
both. Let's see where people are. I was told ``no.'' In fact, every 
single Republican voted ``no.''
  It is clear to me that this is about buying off Members of the MAGA 
fringe. It is about appeasing a small group of radical, hard-right 
Members, the MAGA circus I call them, a group that is extorting the 
Speaker of the House and threatening to take down the bill, and maybe 
threatening to take down his speakership if they don't get every single 
thing that they want.
  What they want is to load up the NDAA with every single divisive 
social issue under the sun. The group that is pushing these amendments 
is the so-called Freedom Caucus. I say so-called because they don't 
care about freedom.
  They are demanding amendments that threaten a woman's access to 
abortion. They are demanding amendments that roll back LGBTQIA+ rights. 
They are demanding amendments that undermine diversity, equity, and 
inclusion efforts.
  The Freedom Caucus doesn't care about freedom when it is a woman's 
freedom to make their decisions about their own bodies or someone's 
freedom to love who they want or be who they are, or people's freedom 
to not get shot at school, a grocery store, or a mall.
  America needs to understand who the Freedom Caucus is and what they 
stand for. They do not care about your freedom. They care about their 
own freedom. They care about their freedom to do whatever the hell they 
want to do, the American people be damned. What an embarrassment. That 
is who Kevin McCarthy has put in charge.
  We are here debating social issues in a defense bill because the far 
right, the MAGA fringe, the Freedom Caucus are obsessed with these 
culture wars. They say Democrats are the ones injecting social issues 
into the military, but make no mistake, they are the ones who are doing 
that.
  Kevin McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme 
Members of his own Conference while hanging everyone else out to dry. 
It is all so that he can hold on to his power. I almost feel bad for 
our Republican colleagues who are closer to the center, if any of them 
still exist. Kevin McCarthy may be the MAGA ringmaster, but it is clear 
that the clowns have taken over the circus.
  Mr. Speaker, so many of the amendments this rule makes in order are 
simply offensive. They have the potential to really hurt people, and 
they are destructive. I hope that all my colleagues are well-read on 
what each does before they come to the floor over the next few days to 
vote.

  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Langworthy), my very good friend who was there for every 
minute of the Rules Committee hearings last night and the night before, 
and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The legislation before us today makes historic progress to reinforce 
the strength of our military and to protect our national security in 
the face of an aggressive, ambitious Chinese Communist Party.
  First, this year's NDAA counters the Biden administration's dangerous 
efforts to reduce the size of our Navy and focuses resources on 
rebuilding our Armed Forces and procuring munitions.
  The bill also puts a firm ban on our military from contracting with 
companies that do business with the CCP, ensuring the security of our 
military cannot be internally compromised by our most dangerous 
adversary.
  It accelerates the deployment of advanced radars to track threats to 
our homeland--like the Chinese spy balloon that this administration was 
so incapable of taking down.
  The NDAA before us today protects our military from the Biden 
administration's efforts to reduce its strength and to lull our country 
into complacency while our adversaries pose a direct threat to our 
national security.

                              {time}  1245

  We cannot afford to underestimate the gravity of the situation in the

[[Page H3498]]

world today. We cannot have peace through strength without staying 
alert and ensuring that our men and women in uniform, who make up the 
strongest and most mighty military on the face of the Earth, have the 
resources and support that they deserve.
  I strongly support the rule before us today, and I urge my colleagues 
to come together once again for the security of our great Nation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in June, I went home to where Democrats announced $670 
million of investments in broadband that will grow our middle class in 
New Mexico. Then, I came back to a Congress controlled by the most 
extreme Members of the Republican Party who want to strip women of 
their ability to receive reproductive healthcare.
  If these extreme Republicans succeed, it will be unreasonably 
difficult for servicewomen assigned to bases in States that ban 
abortion to travel and receive reproductive healthcare.
  I came back to an extreme Republican Party that wants to take the 
culture wars to our military instead of preparing our servicemembers to 
protect Americans from war.
  A travel ban for pregnant servicewomen, how un-American is that?
  This rule and the extreme amendments in it are simply unpatriotic. 
They are un-American. The Republicans are waging culture wars against 
patriotic women, patriotic Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, 
gays, lesbians, and trans Americans who serve in our military. These 
patriotic men and women are willing to fight and die for our country.
  I call upon my colleagues to honor the sacrifice of these diverse 
Americans and vote against this rule and these horrible amendments.
  I call upon my colleagues to reject the culture wars and instead to 
celebrate. Let's celebrate the diversity that is America. Let's honor 
all servicemembers, all servicewomen, and their sacrifice.
  Democrats are supporting our troops, and Democrats are investing in 
our country and investing in our military while Republicans are 
dividing our country with these extreme amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this extremism.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Roy), who is another member of the Rules Committee who has been 
fighting the good fight for the last two nights well past midnight.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the characterization of what 
has transpired with respect to the legislation before us. We have 
passed, by voice vote even, four bipartisan en bloc amendments with 
items like China, Taiwan, readiness, munitions, and Israel--a host of 
issues that do not fall into the category that the ranking member 
raises, which I am happy to address in a moment.
  There are countless other amendments that we have raised and 
addressed. For example, my friend Mr. Rosendale's amendment, which I 
know is near and dear to the heart of Mr. Griffith from Virginia, 
limits indefinite detention.
  There are other amendments. For example, Mr. Norman's requires that 
any Department of Defense component that fails to pass an independent 
audit have 1\1/2\ percent of its budget returned to the Treasury for 
deficit reduction.
  These are a lot of very good, commonsense amendments. We went through 
the process, combed through 1,500 amendments, and made decisions in the 
Rules Committee on how to equitably bring them to the floor. They cover 
the gamut of issues that the American people are concerned about when 
they see their Department of Defense no longer able to defend the 
United States.
  That is the question.
  I hear the ranking member talking about how we are injecting culture 
wars into the National Defense Authorization Act or injecting culture 
wars into the military when, in fact, it is this administration that 
has turned the Department of Defense into a social engineering 
experiment wrapped in a uniform. That is what is happening. That is 
what the American people see.
  When the American people see advertisements in June with rainbow 
bullets strapped to helmets, when they see surgeries for transgender 
people being funded by taxpayers at the Department of Defense, and when 
they see the Department of Defense ignoring existing law, existing 
precedent, and existing traditionally historic bipartisan agreements on 
Hyde amendment protections, then they see the Department of Defense 
being turned into a social engineering experiment.
  Of course, the people's House is responding to an executive branch 
that is making policy by executive fiat not just, of course, in this 
area but across the entirety of the Federal Government. So, yes, we are 
offering amendments to address these things.
  An Air Force Academy deck slide instructs cadets to use language like 
``parents and caregivers'' instead of ``moms and dads.'' Well, that is 
a really great use of time for the Air Force Academy. Don't refer to 
the phrase ``mom and dad.'' Boy, that will do it.
  The United States Special Operations Command's diversity and 
inclusion strategic plan claims that diversity and inclusion are 
operational imperatives. The Marines tweeted a Pride Month image, as I 
pointed out, with rainbow-tipped bullets. This stuff is happening every 
day.
  When I go talk to military recruits and talk to the recruiters, they 
are struggling. They are not even able to make their recruiting goals. 
They are well under their numbers. Why? Because the target audience of 
people who want to serve in the military don't want to be preached to. 
They don't want to have their entire worldview being questioned by the 
leaders and the brass in the military.

  We are trying to stop that. We would like to make the military 
focused on killing people and blowing stuff up again because that is 
what a military is supposed to be for--sparingly used and not in 
endless wars, but ready and able to defend the United States of 
America.
  The American people I talk to back home don't want a weak military. 
They don't want a woke military. They don't want rainbow propaganda on 
bases. They don't want to pay for troops' sex changes. The American 
people want a military that can provide for security and win wars.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing with this legislation, and I 
am proud to support the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin. I will just say to the 
gentleman that I actually do a lot of work on the issue of grandparents 
raising grandchildren because some kids don't have moms and dads. Aunts 
and uncles are raising their nieces and their nephews. So, I don't know 
even know what that rant was about.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that prevents 
implementing the unanimous recommendations made by the bipartisan base 
renaming commission. The goal of the commission--for my colleagues to 
be informed--was to ensure that our bases do not celebrate Confederate 
officers who took up arms against the United States. That is right. The 
amendment actually stops us from implementing unanimous recommendations 
to rename bases named after Confederates, men who fought on the side of 
slavery.
  Contrast that with some of the amendments that my Republican 
colleagues blocked last night. An amendment to provide veterans with 
free mental health visits was blocked. An amendment to provide funding 
to organizations to assist the transition of servicemembers back to 
civilian life was blocked because it was too woke. On my amendment to 
provide ride-sharing transportation for homeless veterans, they all 
voted no.
  All of them were blocked, but this Confederate base renaming 
amendment was made in order. That is their priority, protecting the 
good name of Confederates, literal traitors to the United States? This 
is the big issue for the Republican Party on the NDAA.
  I will say to the gentleman from Texas who was just shouting on the 
floor that when he talks about this being a good process, again, in 
this rule that we are considering right now and bringing to the floor 
right now, there

[[Page H3499]]

are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic 
amendments. How is that fair or reasonable under any measure?
  I could go on and on about how awful some of the Republican 
amendments are. Let me just highlight another one. Mr. Roy, a member of 
the Rules Committee, submitted an amendment that says that we are not 
allowed to teach people that any part of the Constitution has ever been 
racist.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I was a history major in 
college. Do I have to explain to people what the three-fifths 
compromise was? When the Constitution was written, it counted enslaved 
African Americans as three-fifths of a person, for God's sake. The 
Constitution literally said that Black people weren't full people when 
it was written.
  Does the author of this amendment just want us to pretend like it 
didn't happen?
  I am someone who actually is proud that America has made progress 
since then. I am proud of the work that so many have done to right 
these wrongs. I find this attempt to diminish that progress and to 
pretend as if there was never any racism in this country incredibly 
offensive.
  Slavery? Never happened.
  Jim Crow? What is that? Racism doesn't exist.
  Three-fifths compromise? Never heard of it.
  This is all just so, so wrong.
  For the record, it wasn't until the 14th Amendment passed in 1868 
that the three-fifths compromise was explicitly repealed.
  So, what is the point of this amendment? To imply that slavery didn't 
happen? To imply that racism wasn't a problem? To rewrite history and 
gloss over the three-fifths compromise?
  There was a time when the racism of the Republican Party was more 
subtle. Now, it is just out in the open. They might as well have made 
in order an amendment to bring back the Confederacy.
  I find it incredibly, incredibly disgusting that this was made in 
order. This is wrong. It is racist. It is really offensive.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Having had some tenure on this floor, my recollection is that, in 
many instances, the NDAA has been a welcomed bipartisan initiative. We 
have worked together and formulated ways to improve the lives of the 
men and women of the United States military.
  Let me just make it very clear that that is what the NDAA is supposed 
to be, strengthening our ability to be a fighting force. Who do you 
have as a fighting force? The men and women of the United States 
military.
  I take great offense at the suggestion that there are not young 
people in America who are willing to lay down their lives as our 
fathers, mothers, and grandparents did. They do want to join the United 
States military.
  It is the ability of the military to govern itself within the 
civilian framework that we should be promoting in the NDAA. It is a 
terrible shame that Members of color on this floor will be forced to 
vote on something that takes us back to the dark ages, to not talking 
about how richly diverse we are.
  All of these race amendments that have been allowed to come to the 
floor are literally a disgrace.
  Did we talk about the diminishing returns when the Tuskegee Airmen 
took to the skies in the 1940s in World War II and were one of the most 
successful bombing units ever? Black--my father-in-law, Philip Ferguson 
Lee.
  Did we find a diminishing in the military when Truman integrated 
legally to allow African Americans to join the United States military 
or to rise and not be discriminated against and others followed?
  It was a magnificent move and a fearless move. Many thought Truman 
would lose his election.
  How dare we come to the floor on this? This is about our men and 
women.
  Why would my amendment be left out that talks about Black maternal 
mortality? There are Black women soldiers and officers who would 
benefit from that. Or $10 million that I introduced dealing with 
triple-negative breast cancer that has been accepted and is in year 
after year because it is to save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, $2.5 million in post-traumatic stress disorder, it is to 
save our soldiers' lives and to be able to admit that there is PTSD 
continuing. We need to be able to help or to address injuries that come 
after someone comes out of the military and to connect them to military 
benefits, which we see many times.

                              {time}  1300

  Yes, I have an amendment in this that deals with providing emergency 
housing for those of us who live in the Gulf region or live in the West 
where these natural disasters are coming or on the East Coast in 
Connecticut, so that when people are totally displaced, we are very 
grateful for the fact that the bases would be open to providing 
disaster care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this amendment that is in adds a report 
to be submitted within 220 days following enactment on capacity to 
provide disaster survivors with emergency short-term housing.
  This bill should be a bill that builds the mighty fighting force. It 
should not deny women the right under their medical care, and Secretary 
Austin and the Pentagon to say quietly, you can have a medical 
decision. If it cannot be made in the State that you are forced to be 
assigned to, posted, you can go to another State.
  It is a disgrace that they would interfere in private reproductive 
rights. This is undermining what we are here for; to build up a 
fighting force of men and women, and that is what this bill should be.
  We will stand to the death to make sure this bill supports the men 
and women and the fighting forces of America.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this rule makes in order a 
number of truly, truly offensive amendments.
  You know what? If the majority wants to do that and put this 
bipartisan bill at risk, that is their prerogative. It is, again, the 
contrast between what they are prioritizing and what they are blocking 
that astonishes me.
  For example, the rule makes in order an amendment to restrict 
servicewomen from accessing abortion care when 40 percent of Active 
Duty servicewomen now serve in States that have banned or restricted 
access to abortion.
  These servicewomen are stationed based on the needs of our Nation and 
not on personal preference and deserve access to crucial reproductive 
healthcare services.
  I look forward to voting ``no'' on that amendment, but an amendment I 
won't have a chance to vote on is my amendment that calls for an annual 
report to Congress on atrocity prevention and response in Sudan.
  Why does this rule make room for a controversial amendment to prevent 
abortion care, which might threaten the passage of this bill, by the 
way, but it blocks dozens and dozens of noncontroversial amendments 
like that one? What is wrong with a report on atrocity prevention?
  I genuinely do not understand, Mr. Speaker. There is only one 
explanation that I have, and that is that rational people are not 
calling the shots here.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than these culture wars designed to kind of 
relive the Confederacy that some of my colleagues seem hell-bent on 
doing, we ought to be talking about things that matter to the American 
people. We ought to be talking about how we protect Social Security and 
Medicare.
  I am going to urge a ``no'' vote so that we can bring up an amendment 
to get Members on record saying that they do want to protect Social 
Security and Medicare.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question and to speak on this amendment.

[[Page H3500]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).
  Mr. VASQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in my hopeful support of the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  As a Member from New Mexico, the birthplace of nuclear research and 
the nuclear bomb, and also as a member of the Armed Services Committee, 
I have worked incredibly hard on this committee to draft a defense bill 
that delivers for our servicemembers, that improves military housing, 
that strengthens our national security, and that brings jobs to New 
Mexico. This is what the NDAA should be about.
  That is why it is so disappointing that Republicans and the majority 
are threatening servicemembers' access to reproductive healthcare. 
Women's healthcare decisions are between them and their doctor, not the 
government.
  Guess what? To my Republican colleagues, I will just remind you that 
the majority of the American people agree with us.
  Why are we even debating taking away healthcare from our 
servicemembers who have dedicated their lives to our country? Our 
military personnel and their loved ones should have access to 
healthcare that they need and that they have earned and that they 
deserve.
  Let me be clear. Reproductive healthcare is healthcare. Our 
servicemembers deserve to serve with dignity.
  I look forward to supporting our servicemembers, by passing this 
NDAA, supporting those jobs, supporting nuclear research in New Mexico, 
supporting the advancement of hypersonics in places like White Sands 
Missile Range, supporting our military servicemembers at Holloman Air 
Force Base, but this amendment threatens the support for that.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule that attacks our women in 
the military and puts our national security in jeopardy.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to go back to a point on this issue of abortion. Quite 
frankly, we look at this issue very differently. As my friend, Mr. Roy 
from Texas, said, we see the administration as having directly 
intervened and changed existing policy.
  We have something called the Hyde amendment, which has been passed 
for years, decades, over and over again, and it prohibits using Federal 
tax dollars for abortion. Facilitating abortion is exactly what we are 
talking about here.
  Now, was there any consultation with us when the executive branch 
decided to do that? No, there wasn't.
  As my friend from Texas pointed out, there is a pretty big pushback 
on our side.
  We have worked in a bipartisan fashion. That is why that bill came 
out of committee 58-1. Most of the amendments on this floor in the last 
couple days have been bipartisan, and we have worked together.
  There are issues where we simply don't agree, and this is, at the end 
of the day, a majoritarian institution.
  While my friend talks about the extremist this or the extremist that, 
if it is an extremist amendment, it won't win the majority.
  These amendments that are going to come up here are either going to 
win or lose. Some of them are going to lose.
  Some of the time, my friend and I are actually going to be voting the 
same way on those amendments. Other times, we will vote differently. We 
will certainly vote differently at the end of the day when it comes 
time to vote on the bill.
  That is the way the game is played here. To say that some majority is 
being run by extremists, by definition, that is almost impossible 
because you can't be the majority on the House floor if it is true.
  Again, you can disagree, and I respect the disagreement, but the 
initiator, particularly in the case of abortion and I would say some of 
the other culture clashes that we are having on this bill, has been the 
administration, has been policies that were decided in this 
administration and sometimes pushed on the military against their own 
wishes.
  Again, it is the executive branch. They get to run the military. They 
get to do what they want to do. But please, when you get a response 
from people that genuinely disagree, to say they started it by 
responding is simply not the case.
  Again, I look forward to this debate. I understand that people will 
have very different opinions. I do remind everybody that 95 percent of 
this bill is this bill, you know. It was bipartisan. It does deal with 
the military. Very little of much of the debate has dealt with the 
military.
  I actually sit on the Defense Appropriations Committee. We spend a 
lot of time talking about what is the right mix of arms? What is going 
to happen in terms of artillery? What are we doing to update AWACS? I 
can go on and on. Most of the discussions in the House Armed Services 
Committee were similar.
  Again, we are going to have these differences and let the chips fall 
where they may. I would suspect whatever product comes off this floor 
will be the product that the majority of this body chose.
  Then we will go, as my friends well know, to sit down with the United 
States Senate, and they will have a different product, and the 
President will be part of that discussion because he has to sign the 
bill.
  We are going to have a pretty good tussle here. To think this is the 
be-all and end-all today I think is a disservice to the process and how 
it unfolds and how it actually works.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more 
speakers he has on his side?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this process has shown us the priorities 
of the Republican majority; protecting the reputation of confederate 
leaders, banning books because they want to rewrite history, 
controlling women's bodies.
  Overturning Roe v. Wade wasn't enough. They want to ban abortion 
nationwide. They want to restrict a servicemember's ability to get 
travel expenses covered, attacking LGBTQ+ servicemembers, cutting off 
aid to Ukraine in the middle of their fight against Putin, stifling 
diversity and equity in the military, and shrugging off climate change, 
which the Department of Defense says poses a direct threat to our 
national security.
  You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. The thing is, many 
Republicans know that these amendments are offensive. They know these 
plans and these ideas are unpopular. That is why there has been so much 
whiplash the last few days to get this rule to the floor today.
  What was not on their priority list in this bill? I will tell you 
what was not on their priority list; reducing the NDAA top line, which 
is far too high and wastes taxpayer dollars.
  In the appropriations process, they are cutting moneys from WIC and 
from Meals on Wheels, but they boost up the defense budget.
  What is not on their list is helping our veterans with post-traumatic 
stress disorder. They rejected an amendment on that yesterday in the 
Rules Committee.
  What is not on their list is protecting access to reproductive 
healthcare or ensuring the ability for transgender individuals to serve 
their country or encouraging diversity and equity in all military ranks 
or preventing the transfer of cluster munitions to all countries.
  That is not even to mention the dozens of noncontroversial Democratic 
amendments that would simply authorize reports on our national defense.
  This is ridiculous. Let me again remind everybody in this rule, there 
are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic 
amendments. On what planet is that even considered reasonably fair? 
This is outrageous.
  Again, a big chunk of the Democratic amendments, you may not agree 
with them, but we ought to have 10 minutes

[[Page H3501]]

of debate and a vote up or down on them.

  As they say, this is about getting ``woke'' out of the military. They 
blocked my amendment to help homeless vets get rides to medical 
appointments. What the hell is woke about that? They blocked it because 
it was woke. I mean, I don't even know what they are thinking.
  Look, if the extreme MAGA amendments pass and this NDAA bill passes 
on a partisan vote, it should not be seen as a victory for Speaker 
McCarthy.
  Barely passing a bill that usually passes with a supermajority is not 
a victory. I wish him luck in negotiations with the Senate where some 
of these policies will be nonstarters.
  The Speaker of the House needs to grow a spine, not for his own 
reputation but for the good of this country. This is a terrible, 
terrible process. These amendments are pathetic that have been made in 
order. They are offensive. It disrespects and diminishes this 
institution.
  It is sad to see the small group of extremists calling the shots 
here, but that is what is happening right now. They have turned this 
defense bill into a place for them to launch their culture wars.
  What a disservice to our country; what an insult to the Members of 
this Chamber; what an insult to the men and women who serve our country 
that these are the priorities that we are debating here today. I mean, 
give me a break.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution. 
Today's rule makes in order 80 amendments reflecting Member priorities 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Although I would have liked to have worked more quickly, on a matter 
that is so critical as the annual NDAA we owe the American people no 
less than whatever time is necessary to complete this important task.
  I remind the House that the NDAA has been passed into law every year 
for 62 consecutive years. I am confident that with today's rule, we are 
well on the way to making it 63.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to point out and emphasize several 
important facts that sometimes get lost in the spirited debate.
  The first one is that about 95 percent of this bill is exactly what 
passed out of the House Armed Services Committee 58-1, as my friends 
have pointed out, and I agree. Most of this bill is extraordinarily 
bipartisan. Most of the amendments that have come to this floor, 300 
yesterday, or 290, roughly, were bipartisan and were accepted no matter 
who authored them, Democrat or Republican, by either side.
  As I said yesterday, this was going to be more contentious today, and 
that is fine. But to suggest that anything you disagree with that 
passes is extreme, I think, frankly, you are leaping to a conclusion.
  Some of these amendments that my friend points to the most probably 
won't pass, probably won't make it. Again, there is nothing 
inappropriate about that. I mean, I have come down here--and I know my 
friend has--plenty of times and fought for things that we believed in 
that may have been right or wrong, but we lost or won. What comes out 
of here will be what a majority of the House decides is appropriate.
  Now, as I have said multiple times in the course of the debate, this 
is a process, not an event. The reality is, we are going to sit down at 
some point, almost certainly, with the Senate and the President. The 
Senate is Democratic, and the President is a Democrat. We are going to 
have a discussion and a debate, and I suspect the product that comes 
out of that will be different than the one that emerges here. That is 
okay. It will be different than what the Senate writes, and it will be 
different than what the President's budget was and what he proposed.
  Nobody is going to get everything they want. At the end of the day, 
everybody is going to have to give and take, and the reality is if we 
get to a bill, which I think we will because we have for 62 consecutive 
years, it is going to be a bipartisan compromise.
  We can have all the theatrics and all the flailing of arms. That is 
part of the process, too. At the end of the day, almost all of this 
bill is bipartisan, and almost all of this bill is supported by the 
majority of both sides of the aisle. There are individual flash points 
where we disagree.
  I know about getting rolled in debates. I remember my Democratic 
friends spending $1.9 trillion without a single Republican vote and 
unleashing the worst inflation we have seen in 40 years. I remember 
them bringing a bill to this floor called the Inflation Reduction Act 
that had zero to do with inflation and was everything about green 
climate. Fair enough. If you want to do that, that is okay. You didn't 
get a single Republican vote, but you won, and you got it through the 
Senate and got the President of the United States to sign it.
  There are plenty of times that one side has steamrolled the other. 
There are other times when we negotiate together. Welcome to the House 
of Representatives and to American politics.
  What we are going to deal with today, there will be a lot of sound. 
There will be a lot of noise.
  Most of the bill is bipartisan. It is an extraordinarily good bill. 
As a matter of fact, lost in the course of this debate is one of the 
areas where my friends and I do disagree, and I disagree with the bill, 
and that is that we are coming in at the President's number. This 
outrageous, terrible bill is going to be at the number the President 
proposed. I think that number is too low--I really do--but I am going 
to vote for it because it is still better than last year and better 
than a CR, and it moves the country in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I have enjoyed the debate. I always do. I will 
close by thanking my friend. I mean this with all sincerity. I will end 
where I began. We have been through a couple of challenging days in the 
Rules Committee, very long nights. I very much appreciate the 
professionalism of my friend and his colleagues and my colleagues on my 
side of the aisle. I very much appreciate the staff that worked very 
hard on both sides of the aisle and also the wonderful House support 
staff that we had facilitating our meetings. I thank them all, and I 
particularly thank my friend.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________