[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 99 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3730-H3736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8070, SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE
IMPROVEMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2025; RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 118-527 AND
ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1287 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1287
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 consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8070) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2025 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year. The first reading
of the bill
[[Page H3731]]
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
118-36, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8070, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part B of 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 part B of 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 further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
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 further amendments printed
in part B of 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 40 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 H.R. 8070
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.
Sec. 5. If House Report 118-527 is called up by direction
of the Committee on the Judiciary: (a) all points of order
against the report are waived and the report shall be
considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution
offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary shall
be considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of
order; and (2) the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on such resolution 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 the Judiciary or
their respective designees.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of the resolution accompanying House
Report 118-527, the resolution accompanying House Report 118-
533 is hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1287, providing for
consideration of three measures including H.R. 8070, the Servicemember
Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2025, to be considered under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, provides for
one motion to recommit, and makes 350 amendments in order.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of House Report
118-527 and the accompanying resolution recommending that the House of
Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule also provides that upon adoption of the resolution
accompanying House Report 118-527, the resolution accompanying House
Report 118-533 is adopted.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying
pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 8070, the Servicemember
Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2025.
Madam Speaker, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, as well as the
leadership of Ranking Member Adam Smith, the bipartisan fiscal year
2025 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Armed Services
Committee by a vote of 57-1. It significantly improves the quality of
life for our servicemembers. It deters our adversaries, supports our
allies, and focuses on our military readiness and our national
security.
According to several top national security officials, our country is
facing serious threats to our democracy and freedom at levels that we
haven't seen since World War II. It is imperative for our national
security that our servicemembers and their families are supported and
that they can focus on their mission.
Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established the Quality of Life
Panel to evaluate the quality of life of our servicemembers. The panel
found that servicemembers' quality of life concerns are a major cause
of low morale and family stress, which are undermining recruitment,
retention, and military readiness.
The National Defense Authorization Act puts our servicemembers and
their families first and addresses many of the issues found by the
Quality of Life Panel. The legislation improves servicemembers' quality
of life by boosting compensation, improving housing, ensuring access to
medical care, enhancing support for military spouses, and increasing
access to childcare.
Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and
Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support
our warfighters at home and abroad and to deter our adversaries.
It is the NDAA's intent to ensure that our Nation's military is
organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries. Communist
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nations or terrorist
groups must know that they will never succeed in a war with the United
States of America. The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring
lethality, defending Israel, securing our southern border, and
providing oversight and accountability.
To deter our adversaries, we must continue to modernize our military.
The National Defense Authorization Act boosts innovation providing for
the development and fielding of AI, quantum computing, and autonomous
systems.
The legislation also removes Communist China from our supply chain
and prevents the Communist China spies from infiltrating our research
institutions inside the United States of America.
The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and supports our Indo-Pacific
allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries.
This legislation also supports our ally Israel as they defend
themselves from Hamas terrorists by expanding U.S.-Israel military
exercises while also fully funding cooperative missile defense
programs.
Additionally, Madam Speaker, the Armed Services Committee included
language that saves our taxpayers over $30 billion by cutting
inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.
We live in the greatest free nation on Earth, and it is imperative
that we support those who protect it. The fiscal year '25 National
Defense Authorization Act is another step in that direction.
[[Page H3732]]
Moving on to the resolutions recommending that the House of
Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight
and Accountability, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of February,
Special Counsel Robert Hur released his report on President Biden's
mishandling of classified documents that were discovered in his home
and office in 2022.
On February 27, the Judiciary and Oversight Committees issued
identical subpoenas compelling production of certain documents,
including audio and video recordings of Special Counsel Hur's
interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter. These subpoenas
were not complied with, Madam Speaker. The audio recordings were never
produced. On May 16, the morning of the markup of the contempt report
in the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, President Biden exerted
executive privilege over those recordings.
Madam Speaker, the audiotapes are the best evidence that the
transcripts provided to the committee accurately reflect the true
content. Additionally, President Biden waived any potential assertions
of executive privilege when he released the transcript, and he has not
set forth any valid basis for invoking executive privilege.
Madam Speaker, the following things are true: The subpoenas were
legally authorized. The subpoenas were not complied with.
It is extremely clear: We wouldn't be here on the floor today
discussing the matter if that was not the case.
The American people deserve to know the truth. Even news outlets in
this country, nearly a dozen, in fact, have sued for access to the
recordings.
Madam Speaker, Attorney General Garland has chosen not to comply with
the subpoenas, and because of his choice, he must be found in contempt
of Congress.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important
pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today's rule is a tale of two Congresses.
On the one hand, we have the National Defense Authorization Act, the
NDAA, which is a bipartisan bill, the result of good faith negotiations
between Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee
to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense.
This NDAA accommodates the diverse interests of Members of the House in
ways that, while inevitably not satisfying everyone on every point,
represent compromises that ensure the bill can become law.
Attached to this rule are two nakedly partisan and groundless
contempt resolutions based on manufactured allegations, conspiracy
theories, and bad faith arguments designed solely to smear President
Biden in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
In the first example, we see Congress at its best. In the second, we
see Congress at its worst.
First, the NDAA: The fiscal year 2025 NDAA is a solid bipartisan
package designed to support our servicemembers and provide for our
national defense.
I applaud the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee
for their evenhanded, bipartisan work to produce a bill that addresses
priorities and concerns from all across the country. Like all
negotiated bills, there are policies I agree with and disagree with,
but that is how negotiation and compromise work.
Of particular note is that this year's NDAA would implement long-
overdue reforms to improve military recruitment and retention, a
growing concern as our armed services have struggled to meet recruiting
targets over the past decade.
The reforms in this bill are the result of an in-depth, bipartisan
study led by Representatives Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan into the
factors impacting recruitment and retention. It should be no surprise
that the main concerns facing our servicemembers are the same as those
of many American families: wanting to earn enough to support a family
and to afford good housing, childcare, and medical care.
This NDAA increases pay and benefits for junior servicemembers. It
fixes dilapidated military housing. It increases military housing
benefits. It fully funds childcare assistance programs so that all
eligible military families can receive the benefits. It strengthens
programs to support military spouses.
It is a disgrace that we have servicemembers living in poverty,
servicemembers and member families who go hungry, and servicemembers
who aren't able to take care of their children and families.
{time} 0930
I am glad that the Armed Services Committee came together on these
reforms. They will go a long way in fighting poverty and hunger and
will encourage more people to enlist in military service.
This NDAA also makes significant investments in our national defense.
The bill funds a range of programs to support our domestic defense
industrial base. These programs will help maintain and create jobs
throughout the country and ensure that we can meet the demand for
munitions and weapons systems to support our own military needs and
those of our allies.
Finally, this NDAA makes needed cuts to wasteful defense programs to
keep the top-line spending in the bill at a flat 1 percent increase
over last year's amount.
All in all, while there are plenty of policies that I disagree with,
the overall bill is solid and should garner the support of a large
majority of House Members.
However, despite the best efforts of our Armed Services colleagues,
it looks like House Republican leadership has decided to politicize the
NDAA, just as they did last year.
Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans made in order dozens
of rightwing MAGA amendments that will poison the NDAA's bipartisan
support. These amendments, many of which are likely to be adopted by
the House's extremist Republican majority, would restrict access to
abortion care for female servicemembers and block efforts to promote
diversity and address discrimination in our armed services.
In doing so, House leadership is, once again, politicizing one of the
few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement in the House, while
ignoring the real needs of those who serve our country.
Last year, when House Republicans pulled this exact same stunt, it
killed bipartisan support for the NDAA for the first time in decades.
This week Republicans have decided to repeat that mistake.
Additionally, last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected
multiple bipartisan amendments to the bill. Republicans rejected an
amendment from a Member of their own party to add 4,000 special
immigrant visas to resettle our Afghan allies who supported our troops
throughout that conflict and who we promised to protect.
Republicans rejected another Republican amendment to adopt the Major
Richard Star Act, which would fix a longstanding prohibition that
prevents medically retired veterans from receiving their full earned
benefits. That is a provision that has the support of over 300 Members
of this House.
Republicans rejected a bipartisan amendment to provide cancer
screenings for civilian DOD firefighters, who have been
disproportionately exposed to cancer-causing PFAS forever chemicals.
These screenings would help detect cancers early and save lives.
Lastly, Republicans rejected an amendment that would ensure that
female servicemembers, who place their lives on the line for their
country, would have the freedom to access reproductive healthcare when
they need it.
Republicans rejected these sensible amendments, prioritizing over two
dozen partisan culture war amendments, including amendments to relocate
a Confederate monument back to Arlington National Cemetery and to
defund DOD efforts to remove white nationalists from our military.
In rejecting other amendments, our Afghan allies, our veterans, our
firefighters, and women servicemembers have to take a back seat to the
MAGA
[[Page H3733]]
extremists' culture wars. That is shameful. It is bad leadership, and
it is clear that House Republicans have the wrong priorities for our
servicemembers, our veterans, our national security, and our country.
Madam Speaker, whereas the NDAA, absent the toxic amendments,
represents the possibilities of a functional legislative process and
bipartisan negotiation, the rest of this rule represents the worst
parts of this Chamber.
Since the first day of the 118th Congress, Republicans have spent the
past year and a half spreading lies and conspiracy theories about
President Biden and denying or making excuses for the misdeeds of their
presumptive Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump.
A year and a half of investigations, depositions, written testimony,
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and they haven't turned up
any credible evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden or his
administration.
In fact, they have conclusively proven what the world knows: that
President Biden has not committed impeachable acts.
While House Republicans have been confronted repeatedly with this
reality, they have doubled down, wasting the time and money of three
separate congressional committees on a wild goose chase that has turned
up exactly zero evidence of wrongdoing.
I will make sure we understand just how backward the House
Republicans' priorities are. At a time when the Nation has been dealing
with high costs, devastating national disasters, and wars in Europe and
the Middle East, Republicans have wasted tens of millions of taxpayer
dollars, thousands of hours of staff time, and weeks of valuable
committee and floor time to pursue completely fabricated allegations
against this President, and all of their wasted time and money has
turned up nothing.
Rather than concede defeat, Republicans have manufactured this
baseless contempt resolution against the Attorney General. Everything
our Republican colleagues are saying about these contempt resolutions
is smoke and mirrors, designed to distract attention from the criminal
conviction of former President Trump by a jury of his peers and a
desperate attempt by Republicans to save face after their failed
investigations, their failed legislative agenda, and their failure to
represent the American people.
There is no wrongdoing, no crime, no impeachable offense. The
President and the Attorney General have done nothing wrong.
Madam Speaker, I honestly don't know who is tuning into C-SPAN at 9
a.m. on a workday to watch a rules debate, but I guarantee that most
Americans could care less about the nonsense we are hearing from the
other side of the aisle about this contempt resolution.
Americans care about real issues. They care about the prices at the
grocery store, access to quality healthcare and childcare, and whether
their kids will be safe on the way to and from school. It is clear that
the Republican majority has not done anything to address those issues.
Many Republican Members have acknowledged as much right here on this
floor.
House Republicans have wasted a year and a half fighting with each
other and falsely smearing President Biden in order to provide cover
for the twice-impeached felon who leads their party.
They can't even pass their priority bills, and thank God they can't,
because their agenda would be disastrous for our civil liberties, our
economy, and our national security.
Day after day, all we get from House Republicans is messaging,
talking points, and a whole lot of hot air. Despite everything,
Democrats remain ready to work for the American people. We have stepped
into the breach multiple times in the past 18 months to negotiate and
cut deals with Republicans to save our economy from default, fund the
government, protect our allies, and provide humanitarian aid where it
is needed most.
We stand ready to advance real solutions for the American people.
That offer is always on the table for Republicans who want to take it
up. As these contempt resolutions make clear, House Republicans have
shown us time and again that they would rather fight partisan culture
wars and stir up chaos and fear than work for the American people.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the
Office of President.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the following things
remain true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were
not complied with.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), my friend and the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I
certainly want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia on leading
his first rule as a member of the Rules Committee.
While he is the newest member of the Rules Committee, he is a
seasoned veteran when it comes to the work of the Armed Services
Committee. There is no one better to lead on our side for the NDAA
reauthorization rule than the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin
Scott).
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the
underlying measures. This was a major piece of work that came through
the House Armed Services Committee, and it came through with input from
Members on both sides of the dais. It was truly a significant product
that passed nearly unanimously in the House Armed Services Committee.
Every day, thousands of men and women don the uniform, sacrificing
time, risking their lives, and inconveniencing their families to defend
us and our Nation. The debt of gratitude we owe them and their families
can never be repaid. Advancing this legislation is the least we can do
to support them and give back to them.
Simultaneously, this legislation continues to counteract threats from
the Chinese Communist Party and our other adversaries by ensuring our
weapons, our equipment, and our cyber capabilities are, indeed,
unmatched. Through the development of indispensable weapons technology
and through increasing the lethality of our warfighters, the NDAA
intercepts the Biden administration's soft international strategy and
puts international security at greater risk.
It is imperative for the House of Representatives to support this
bill as it maintains our commitment to our servicemembers and their
families.
Acknowledging that the contempt resolutions are, indeed, included in
this rule, I sat through the lengthy debate in the Rules Committee
yesterday hearing from the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee
and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The arguments
sometimes became almost Shakespearean in their efforts.
The old line, I think the lady doth protest too much, when that
degree of protestation occurs, you have to ask yourself what in the
heck are they hiding. It is almost as if the American public needs to
see this information and make their own decision.
The American public, unfortunately, has lost a lot of confidence in
the Federal Government and its agencies because of that very lack of
transparency. It is not just on this issue, but it is on a number of
issues.
I think it is incumbent upon us to make the information available to
the American people, trust them to use their good judgment and make the
right call on that.
Republican Members will always support our national defense personnel
with the tools they need to do their jobs, to do them well, and to come
home and come home to a secure Nation.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and support the men
and women in uniform.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, we are all very grateful to the House
Armed Services Committee for the bipartisan product that they have put
forward here, but as we said before, it is the inclusion of multiple
poison pill amendments all put forward by extremists from the House
Republican majority and the failure to include both bipartisan and
Democratic amendments that are really empowering both this rule and
this bill.
[[Page H3734]]
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure
every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare,
including abortion care.
Following the abhorrent Dobbs decision, which ended the protections
for reproductive rights provided by Roe v. Wade, many States have
enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which Republicans
have declared numerous times is their goal.
Reproductive healthcare is vital, and denying these rights to
millions of women around the country and our servicemembers and their
spouses is shameful and dangerous. That is why House Democrats are
fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who
simply want to access and provide needed care.
H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act will prevent States from
trampling on women's constitutional rights and keep fundamental
healthcare services available across the country.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) to discuss this proposal.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Scanlon for her
work on the Rules Committee, for her focus on this issue this morning,
and in response as to what we would do with the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I have just returned to Washington from my home State
of Texas where I am sorry to report that the healthcare crisis we have
been experiencing has only gotten worse. Pregnant women in crisis,
having miscarriages, having complications that put their health and
their lives at risk, are being turned away from hospital emergency
rooms because the extreme laws that our State legislators have passed,
banning abortion of just about any kind.
Doctors and hospitals have asked for clear guidance about when and
how they can take care of these patients, these American citizens who
are suffering in Texas and States like it that have passed similar,
vague, extreme laws criminalizing doctors, women, and pregnancy itself.
Pregnant women have limited to no access to care and even to
information. This puts their lives and health at risk, including their
ability to have children in the future.
Pregnant women have shown up at emergency rooms only to be told to
come back later when they are closer to death. Closer to death is the
standard in Texas. Let's think about that.
{time} 0945
We have cities and towns passing ordinances saying that women cannot
drive through those cities if they are headed to New Mexico or to other
places where they can get abortion care, if perhaps that is their
purpose in traveling through.
Despite requests for clear guidance about what the Texas law means,
neither the State of Texas nor the Texas Supreme Court will provide it,
leaving women and doctors to risk jail time and more to get the
healthcare that they need.
More than 50 years ago, a similar patchwork of restrictions in
different States led women and doctors' groups to petition the courts
to guarantee the right of Americans to make their own fully informed
decisions about whether, when, and how to be pregnant.
They challenged the Texas law in a case brought by two young Texas
women that went all the way up to the Supreme Court, a case we know as
Roe v. Wade, which set out a framework to protect the health, privacy,
and dignity of women in America.
Madam Speaker, 2 years ago this month, the Supreme Court reversed
that 50-year precedent. The chaos that has followed will continue until
this Congress acts, and we must. We must pass the Women's Health
Protection Act, a bill to restore the framework that Americans have
relied on for the last 50 years, providing a Federal statutory right to
reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, free from medically
unnecessary restrictions.
That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that we can bring up the Women's Health Protection Act
today. We passed it in the last Congress twice. We have to pass it
again and get it to President Biden's desk so that we can protect the
health, privacy, dignity, and freedom of American women.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today and the
underlying legislation that will ensure that our Department of Defense
stays laser focused on military readiness, supporting our
servicemembers and their families, and keeping our greatest adversaries
in check.
For years, this administration was allowed to waste hundreds of
millions of dollars of taxpayer money to force a woke agenda on the men
and women of our military; hobbling their training, their morale, and
their long-term success, all while our greatest adversary, China,
relentlessly developed its own military, including even pulling ahead
of us in the development of hypersonic missile technology. Today, China
possesses hypersonic missiles that can hit our shores, but we do not
yet have the capabilities to completely deter this particular threat.
The legislation under the rule before us today focuses key resources
on this technology, part of which is developed right in my own district
in New York's southern tier.
We cannot delay this any longer, and we cannot effectively secure our
Nation and deter our adversaries, including China, without ridding our
Nation's military of the radical left Green New Deal agenda that they
seem to embed in our defense policy moving forward.
This policy of battery-powered vehicles harnessed by resources
sourced from a supply chain dependent on Communist China leaves our
Nation less secure and more vulnerable than ever before.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to the Biden
administration's transition to electric noncombat vehicles in our Armed
Forces as a win for the environment, but I ask them: Is it really a win
for the environment if we source these critical minerals from strip
mines in Congo and transport them across the globe to be refined in
countries that ignore many of the environmental regulations that we
take for granted here in the United States?
Are we really protecting the environment when we foist inefficient,
unreliable vehicles on our Nation's military while China and India
build hundreds of new coal power plants every single year?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the answer, but
they would rather push their false, fairytale narrative that these
policies are going to reduce global emissions to score political
points.
They ignore the dangerous situations that these policies ultimately
put our military servicemembers in. We need commonsense policies that
focus on merit, lethality, and readiness to shape our military in the
coming years, not the woke dreams of a radical left that would prefer a
country to not have a military at all. We certainly know that they
don't believe that we should have a border, as the policies of the
Biden administration have so thoroughly illustrated to the American
people.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule before us today and help
pass another bold, focused, and crucial NDAA that will support our
servicemembers and ensure that the U.S. military remains the strongest
fighting force on the face of the Earth.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding the time.
I rise today with a warning for my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. You are setting a very dangerous
[[Page H3735]]
precedent by trying to hold an Attorney General who has provided all of
the substance requested in a subpoena in contempt.
Let's be very clear: This precedent that you are setting is one that
your own former President and Cabinet Secretaries repeatedly violated
in the last administration.
In 2019, the former President famously said that he would defy all
congressional subpoenas, and then he did just that during the
impeachment inquiry. The State Department refused to turn over a single
document.
Under your precedent here with Attorney General Merrick Garland, who
has provided everything that you have asked for except for the audio
recording of an interview with President Biden and the special counsel,
you are moving into dangerous territory.
There is no legitimate legislative purpose to require the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice to turn over the audio recording
of an interview of which they have already turned over the transcript.
Now, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use
explanations such as demeanor evidence and character evidence. That is
all well and good if you are considering whether or not to prosecute
President Biden, but that is not the job of Congress.
There is no legitimate legislative purpose in figuring out ``demeanor
evidence'' as to how President Biden sounded when you have the
information.
It is particularly galling that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are going to try to hold the Attorney General in contempt for
this narrow, narrow issue when he has substantially complied with the
subpoena, when five of my Republican colleagues completely defied
lawful congressional subpoenas last time, including the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
You are setting a dangerous precedent, and, you, my friends on the
other side of the aisle, ought to think twice because what goes around
comes around.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the following things are
true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were not
complied with.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the words ``except for'' are
even being used by my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. People don't have the option to comply partially with a
subpoena. Nobody in this country does.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my
friend.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8070, the
Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.
As the longest-serving enlisted member of the military in the history
of Congress, I bring a very unique perspective to this problem set, and
I get the chance here to stand and speak about the differences that we
may share when it comes to sending billions of dollars to other
countries for them to fight their wars.
We can have that discussion, and I respect both sides of that
argument, but nobody in this body can reasonably argue that any member
of the United States military should be living below the poverty line
as they defend our freedom and the very House that we stand in today
debating this bill.
To frame the problem that our servicemembers face, a civilian can
apply for an entry-level position job at a convenience store in my
district and receive higher compensation than if they were to join the
United States military. As I was serving as an Active-Duty Navy SEAL
being shot at in combat, my wife was standing in line to buy food
products using WIC coupons. I simply view this as unacceptable.
In addition to my experience as a servicemember, I serve on the
Agriculture Committee. As we were debating the farm bill, we were
talking about additional SNAP benefits for members of the military.
That is just the symptom. The root cause is that the DOD brass and
previous Congresses have been relying on welfare to subsidize American
servicemembers' salaries so that they could expend these moneys on
different parts of the defense industry.
This has caused the enlisted pay gap to become a chasm and is the
antithesis of military leadership. Our junior enlisted have been taken
for granted for too long, and it is only exacerbated by Bidenomics,
which is creating an inflationary environment that is crushing the
entire Nation.
The first truth of the Special Operations Forces is that humans are
more important than hardware, and this bill embodies this truth by
including a historic 19.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted,
marking the most significant raise in history.
Unfortunately, President Biden has not included this pay raise in his
budget, and I find it wholly contemptible that someone, the President
specifically, who has managed to become a multimillionaire on a public
servant's salary, would snatch the food out of our junior enlisteds'
mouths as they stand in the breach, protecting his very life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to have many of my
provisions included in this NDAA that will ease the servicemembers'
transition from Active Duty to becoming a veteran, and I thank Chairman
Rogers for his work and support on this. I will continue to champion
these initiatives and will continue to fight to support our
servicemembers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I do agree with some of the gentleman's comments about
the need to increase pay and benefits for our junior servicemembers and
service families, but I have to strongly disagree with his attempts to
turn this into an attack on the President.
We have seen multiple reports from experts talking about the
challenges that our servicemembers face, and the challenges we see to
recruitment are because our economy is so strong that people have other
better-paid and better-resourced opportunities under the current
economy than they have for years. That has been suppressing recruitment
and retention, so I think his economic analysis is a little off.
I did think when he was getting up here, he might be here to speak
about some of his amendments that were not being made in order. Last
night, the majority of the Rules Committee, the Republican majority,
voted unanimously to disallow amendments that would protect our Federal
firefighters from cancer-causing PFAS chemicals.
These were bipartisan amendments, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
was a cosponsor of them, so I assumed that when he was here today, he
was here to speak against the rule. I think perhaps that is the best
choice until we have a more bipartisan approach to the amendments that
should be made in order.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, yesterday in Rules, we had a rare
but wonderful moment of bipartisanship as we considered the NDAA.
Republican Chair Rogers and Democratic Ranking Member Smith spoke in
harmonious unison about the benefits of the bill, which increases pay
for junior enlisted members of our Armed Services by 19.5 percent.
It invests in childcare, healthcare, and job opportunities for their
spouses, which are especially important for rural bases like the Cannon
Air Force Base, which is in my district.
Remember, these bases are often in rural districts because cows don't
complain when those planes make a lot of noise flying overhead.
{time} 1000
These benefits are essential as we battle low recruitment levels. We
must
[[Page H3736]]
treat our servicemembers with the same dignity and respect that they
offer our country and our flag.
Last year, however, I might remind us that we had a similar
bipartisan bill come to Rules, which was then weighed down by poison
pills added as amendments on the House floor. These amendments had to
be taken out in the Senate.
This year, we once again see many proposed amendments adopted in this
rule which are seen as poison pills by so many. These amendments would
block servicewomen's access to reproductive healthcare and abortion.
As the planet faces more extreme storms, one of the amendments would
prevent our military from combating the climate crisis and building
resilience for our bases as sea levels rise.
Madam Speaker, I want to speak to an amendment that was left out of
the rule. Our Republican colleagues blocked a vote on the bipartisan
amendment to extend and expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act,
an amendment offered by Republican Representatives Moylan and Wagner,
myself, and many others.
For 30 years, the United States has provided a one-time payment to
some of the Americans who were exposed to radiation from the U.S.
Government's nuclear testing program and developed cancers or other
diseases.
For reasons no one can explain, RECA left out many communities that
were downwind from these nuclear explosions, like New Mexico, where the
first atomic bomb was exploded, or the communities where the nuclear
waste from the Manhattan Project leaked into the water and soil in
Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. It left out the workers who
cleaned up the radioactive sites from this nuclear testing program,
which was essential for our defense. Uranium miners, including those
who worked after 1971 in Texas, Wyoming, and North Dakota, were left
out.
Republicans and Democrats represent these communities that share a
common bond of grief and illness. Our RECA amendment would provide
justice to these communities and make sure they are eligible. It would
also extend the program for 5 years, since it has now expired.
Some will say we can't do this because of the cost, but the cost has
already been paid in cancer diagnoses, medical bills, and death. The
government assumed this cost when it started our nuclear testing
program, when it first poisoned those unwilling Americans. The
government recognized it should pay this cost when it first passed
RECA.
Our ask is simple today: Please let every person harmed by this
national defense program receive the same compensation. Blocking a vote
on our bipartisan RECA amendment is walking away from the opportunity
to do right by these communities that we have hurt.
RECA expired on Monday. Every moment that Congress fails to act is a
moment when another downwinder or miner might get a cancer diagnosis, a
moment where a son or daughter may start to plan a loved one's funeral.
We cannot wait to do what is right any longer.
While the moment to vote on an amendment to this NDAA may have
temporarily passed in the House, we are asking Speaker Johnson to let
the House vote on the Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization
Act that the Senate already passed by a 2-1 margin.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
As you may have guessed, I strongly oppose this rule. The rule likely
guarantees that there will not be bipartisan support for the NDAA, and
like last year, this means that the House will get steamrolled by the
Senate.
As we have discussed this morning, the two contempt resolutions
included in this rule are not a serious legislative effort but a
manufactured dispute between House Republicans and the Attorney
General, which threatens to undermine rather than promote the rule of
law.
We would be a lot better off with a clean rule for the NDAA, stripped
of all the partisan nonsense, so we can focus on our core
constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
Conducting oversight over our Armed Forces and funding our national
security are two of Congress' most important responsibilities, but the
kind of politicization we see from the House Republicans is
disrespectful to the American people, unbecoming to this Chamber, and
signals to our servicemembers that we don't have their backs when they
need it the most.
As the NDAA goes to the floor this week, I call on my colleagues to
reject the poison pill amendments that have been presented and maintain
the bill's bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question
and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time to close.
This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in
the House of Representatives.
The fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act fully
authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while
eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs. It strengthens our
military and makes important steps to address the security threats
America faces from our adversaries, including China, Iran, and foreign
terrorist organizations.
It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our
ally Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern
border.
Critically, Madam Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of
life of our servicemembers and their families, who sacrifice so much to
defend us. Madam Speaker, it provides a 19.5 percent pay raise for our
junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all
other servicemembers.
Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House has the responsibility to
protect its Article I authority to conduct oversight and
investigations. This week, Attorney General Garland has a choice:
either comply with the lawfully issued subpoenas completely and turn
over the tapes or be held in contempt.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on
the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1287 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Illinois). 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.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam 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 will be postponed.
____________________