National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, this week's fantasy consideration of the NDAA was a gut punch to our servicemembers and one of the weakest displays we have seen during the Senate Democrats' time in the majority.
Let's not forget there are 25 Senate Members serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the skillful leadership of Senators Reed and Inhofe. They cleared their version of the NDAA in July of this year--July of this year, months ago--but the majority leader dragged his feet all the way up until late--late--last night, bringing the NDAA to the floor at the third latest point in the year ever.
Considering China's military rise and the foreign policy disasters this White House has created, one would think delivering a paycheck to our servicemembers and providing funding to increase our military's lethality would be top of mind.
Instead, the majority leader remains focused on reckless taxing, reckless spending, and reckless borrowing that is pushing Americans further into debt, driving up inflation, putting our Nation at a disadvantage, and helping China.
While he pointed his finger at Republicans who simply wanted the opportunity for additional amendments on important subjects, the majority leader is to blame for the fact that the other 75 Senators will not get to offer floor amendments and have an opportunity to help shape our military policy this year. But, regardless, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the majority leader.
The inclusion of a manager's amendment is standard operating procedure. It is actually the starting point and should not be where this process is stopped. Not allowing floor amendments breaks years of precedent.
What is also standard operating procedure is that the NDAA is a bill that is considered on the floor for multiple days and possibly multiple weeks, not one night. In fact, last year, the Senate debated the NDAA for nearly 3 weeks--3 weeks--starting in June.
This body should be able to vote on a myriad of amendments, such as ours, which would prevent dishonorable discharges for military men and women who are forced to separate from the military because of the COVID vaccine mandate.
Now, as a physician, I support the vaccine, but I also believe in the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship. And I support those who are defending our freedoms and have carefully weighed their decision with their doctor, their loved ones, their spouses, perhaps their chaplain, and decided this vaccine isn't right for them.
Once upon a time, I was that army doctor. And if a strapping, well- fit, 20-year-old Army Ranger or a 19-year-old Navy SEAL or a 22-year- old Air Force pilot walked into my office and said, ``Doc, tell me about this vaccine,'' I would have to say, ``Well, there are certainly benefits to the vaccine, certainly benefits to it, but the risk of having a career-ending complication from this vaccine--like heart inflammation, heart swelling--is greater than the chances of you being hospitalized from the virus.''
Now, that is not true for my parents. That is not true for senior citizens. That is not true for obese people. But a fit, young military person in the prime of their life has a greater chance of having a career-ending complication from the vaccine than they do of being hospitalized from the virus.
And by the way, as I am sitting there talking to this pilot, to this Navy SEAL, to this Army Ranger, I would say: If you have that complication, you are going to be out of action for at least 6 months-- at least 6 months--and chances are you will be grounded the rest of your life. You are going to have a checkmark in your medical history. I don't think you'll probably ever be able to fly a plane again. You are never going to be a special ops person again. You have to be the fittest of the fit.
And once you have a heart swelling, do you think that I am going to be able to clear you for the needs of your job? Your career as a pilot or a special OPs personnel is over.
That is right. Your lifelong dream--the career you have worked your whole life for--is over.
And we are going to give this military personnel a dishonorable discharge over this? That is un-American. It is not what Americans believe is right.
Unfortunately, the sledgehammer policy out of the White House says that one size has to fit all, and there are no exceptions to its mandate. This is the biggest sledgehammer I have ever seen. They refuse to consider natural immunity, even though we know natural immunity to COVID is the same as, if not more powerful than the vaccine.
As a result, President Biden wants to slap a dishonorable discharge on our unvaccinated heroes who put their lives on the line each day to defend our freedoms and our American way of life.
A dishonorable discharge is excessive and beyond harsh. They are disqualified from most jobs. They lose access to the GI bill. They lose VA home loans and medical benefits. They lose military funeral honors.
A dishonorable discharge treats those defending our freedoms as felons. Our American heroes deserve better. It is important to point out that this amendment, the amendment that we hoped to have offered last night, hoped to have votes on the Senate floor, passed the House Armed Services Committee--unanimously passed the House Armed Services Committee--and was included in their final bill, which passed with 316 votes, including 181 Democrats.
That is right. This same amendment passed unanimously out of the House Armed Services Committee, and 181 Democrats on the House side supported this amendment in their NDAA. Over here in the Senate, though, don't let the majority leader fool you; this NDAA process was a closed one as a result of his inability to bring the bill to the Senate floor in a timely manner in order to provide sufficient opportunity for Member input.
I urge the majority leader to change course and allow a robust NDAA amendment process that includes a vote on our amendment when the Senate returns after Thanksgiving.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source