Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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. 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source