[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.
____________________