National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is one of the great myths of this situation that we don't have a mission.

The Biden administration has laid out a very, very clear plan, as I said at the outset, and that plan is to do everything we can to help preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine without going to war with Russia. That is the administration's plan, and they have made it clear over and over and over again.

There are a lot of different people that have different opinions. This amendment does not ask for Joe Wilson's plan. This amendment asks for the White House--the administration's plan, which we already have. If you want to get Joe's plan, he is sitting right there, and I suggest you ask him.

The administration has a very clear mission. That mission doesn't have anything to do with regime change or trying Vladimir Putin. These are all things to discuss. The mission in this conflict and the reason we are supporting Ukraine is to preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine, which means helping them take back as much of their territory that they can. How much they can take back is hard to say.

We are supporting them and because we supported them, there is a sovereign democratic Ukraine. We are also at the same time having conversations with Ukraine and trying to have conversations with Russia about getting to the peace table. Right now Vladimir Putin isn't willing to do that. He wants to destroy Ukraine. We are helping Ukraine protect themselves. The mission is clear.

Using this excuse of a report to cut off the funds for the mission is not the right approach. You can disagree with the mission if you want. I understand that. It is a democracy, and we can have that conversation, but let's please stop saying that there isn't clarity.

There is absolute clarity. President Biden, Jake Sullivan, Chairman Milley, and Secretary Austin have said over and over and over again that we are helping Ukraine defend itself so we can preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine and stop Russia from wiping them off the map. That is the mission.

Thus far, it has been successful. We want to help them retake more territory.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we haven't actually used the lend-lease provision yet, so there is nothing to exercise oversight on. It is not clear whether or not it will be used.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address the larger issue which has been raised, and that is the idea that there is a lack of accountability for the funds going to Ukraine. Number one, that is a big Russian-Putin propaganda talking point; and, two, completely wrong. It has been investigated by the IG and a bunch of other folks and determined that that is not happening.

These weapons are going precisely where they are supposed to be going. We know this because if they weren't, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago. They are under attack from a military roughly five times the size of theirs that is much more well-armed and much more well- equipped.

In order to defend themselves, they have to effectively use the support that the United States, and again, 53 other nations are providing to them. They have been effectively using that, which is how they have been able to retake some of the territory that Russia took from them a year and a half ago and protect the rest of the country that Putin was trying to take.

Let's not buy into this myth that somehow this money is being wasted and is not proper oversight. There is a legitimate argument to be had about what you feel about the importance of Ukraine, but it is not based on this money being wasted.

The money has been incredibly effectively used. That is why Ukraine has been able to defend itself. Again, I believe we should help Ukraine defend itself, which is what we are doing. As with all the other amendments along these lines, I urge opposition to this one.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I want to answer the most important question: What does this have to do with national security? It has to do with unit cohesion and with recruitment.

Interestingly, the survey data shows that almost three times as many people say they are worried about joining the military because of their concerns about discrimination as say that they are worried about the military being too woke.

That is the point of this. The training is to make sure there is unit cohesion, number one, and number two, that we can recruit from the entire country.

It really comes down to whether or not you believe that we have a history of discrimination against people of color, the LGBTQ community, and women.

If you think that that just didn't happen and we don't have to worry about it, then I guess this approach makes sense, but the history of our country tells a very different story.

We need to address this in order to make sure that if you are a woman, if you are a Black person, if you are trans or gay, the military is going to give you a fair shake.

Let me remind everybody here. Just 13 years ago, we finally allowed gay people to serve in the military. Every single Republican voted against that. Every single one.

Do we really think that our national security would be stronger if we drove all the gay people out of the military? We need all the resources, all the talents from this country, and regrettably, we haven't always done that. In what is shown, we need to address these issues.

Now, the Republicans exaggerate this. They act like this is all we do in recruitment. I have spent a lot of time with a lot of military people. This is not all we do in training the military. It is something that needs to be done to meet our recruitment goals.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, what this amendment before us says, it says you cannot teach that the Constitution is a racist document.

As Mrs. McClellan pointed out, the Constitution says that Black people are three-fifths of a person. The problem here is that we are not allowing with this amendment to have an honest discussion. Within the military, within society as a whole, you can't have a functioning unit, a functioning institution if you don't understand this history properly.

This amendment requires us to literally whitewash history. If you are a Black person thinking about serving in the military, and you know that is the military you are walking into, you are going to be worried about it.

What DEI does is it gives an opportunity to assure people that they will be treated equally, assurance that they are needed precisely because of amendments like this.

Our country has a rich and complicated history. A lot of it is very good, but we need to be honest about what it is if we are going to recruit from the diverse population that we need to recruit from.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source