Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this measure, and I must say to my friend and the chair of the subcommittee and to my majority colleagues that it is deeply frustrating and deeply regretful to have to stand in opposition to a bill that, in so many ways, is a very good bill.
My colleague Mr. Garcia reflected in his comments just now on many provisions of the bill with which I can agree. This bill does great things for the Indo-Pacific. It is eyes wide open to the threat of China. It funds the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. It provides for strengthening our relationships with allies and partners. It helps our servicemembers.
There is so much good in this bill, so what is so frustrating is to see it infected with the same kind of partisan provisions and divisive issues that, for a long time, have not been a part of the Subcommittee on Defense. This has been a refuge of sorts from the culture wars, from the division that we have seen elsewhere. It now no longer is, and this is the consequence.
The consequence is division in the Department of Defense and in our relations with and review of the Department of Defense, which should not be infected by these areas for a Department that is, again, very realistic about the threats we face.
My colleagues have talked about a lot of these issues already that create fatal flaws in this bill, but I am going to focus on one, and that is climate change. Oh, no. Let's not say those words, ``climate change.'' Somehow, we are all supposed to react to this as if it is some kind of thing that we can put up on the shelf.
The Department of Defense does not ignore climate change. The Department of Defense has had its eyes wide open for decades now on the risks of climate change.
We can go back, for example, to January 2019, which is one of its most recent reports. This is a report from the DOD, ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense.'' Is that a better way to say it?
I quote from the executive summary: ``The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to the Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and installations. Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors. . . . To achieve these goals, DOD must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and natural events. To that end, DOD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission planning and execution to build resilience.''
That is pretty realistic on the part of the DOD. This is followed up by very definite reports, including the ``Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Plan'' from September 1, 2021; the ``Climate Adaptation Plan 2022 Progress Report''; and the ``Climate Risk Analysis,'' October 2021.
DOD is not ignoring this issue however you want to label it, nor can it. Shall we ignore the rise in sea level at Pearl Harbor, where we are investing billions and billions of dollars? Shall we ignore the consequences to Guam from hurricanes? Of course, we need to do this.
Let's get away from this approach of defunding climate risk analysis in the DOD.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I am reading the text of this amendment, and it says here none of the funds appropriated may be used for the purposes of teleworking or remote working for any employee or any contractor of the Department of Defense on a regular and recurring basis.
That seems pretty excessive to me.
Now, I would agree with my colleague from Wyoming that certainly telework presents opportunities in some cases for abuse just as regular work does, but we are living in a new world. We are living in a post- COVID world.
There is a place in our workforce for regular work, which is not so regular anymore, and there is a place in our world for telework.
I can certainly envision legitimate purposes for an employee or a contractor of the Department of Defense to engage in telework; for example, particularly, a valuable contractor who does, in fact, choose to work at home and that contractor's services are desired by the Department of Defense.
Why should we limit the Department of Defense in its ability to utilize telework if and as appropriate? By the way, it may be not only about the efficiency of the work, but it may be more cost effective. It may be more cost effective for that work to be engaged in from the telework perspective. We have the technology to do that.
There are a lot of ways that we can provide for work. We are obviously in a significant recruiting and retention challenge for the Department of Defense, and if the Department of Defense wants to engage in telework or offer that as an alternative to satisfy its own needs, I see no reason to provide an excessive amendment that essentially rules out an entire option that is available really to the rest of our society.
Madam Chair, for those reasons, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, to my friend and colleague, Mr. Calvert, Main Street small business is engaging in telework today. It is finding the opportunities to utilize telework where appropriate. Main Street government is engaging in telework where appropriate.
I completely agree with the concerns for telework in a national security environment. Presumably, if one was exercising flexibility from a responsible perspective, one would not engage in telework, especially in the national security area.
Obviously, we have a great part of our Federal Government that does not engage in national security directly. Why shouldn't the Department of Defense have this particular flexibility?
Again, the excessiveness of the amendment and the no exceptions at all nature of the amendment, I think, advise against it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, to my colleague, I am simply reading the language of the amendment, ``on a regular and recurring basis.'' There may well be suitable reasons why telework would be advisable on a regular and recurring basis which is not health related and not very specifically narrow as she has pointed out.
We have belabored this point long enough.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, suitable oversight of telework by the DOD is appropriate. It is something that we should engage in. To foreclose it under all circumstances, I believe, is unwise.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I just heard my friend and chair of the subcommittee say something that I completely agree with, which is we need real solutions to immigration and the border crisis, and that is true. This takes a piecemeal approach that is unnecessarily broad and unnecessary in general.
To our knowledge, there is no current or planned use of active military bases to support DHS' need for temporary or long-term detention of migrants crossing the southern border. Certainly, if the claims by my colleague from New York are correct, that is worthy of debate.
However, the amendment goes much further than that particular point. It says that the military cannot provide any assistance to the Department of Homeland Security to house persons on a military installation. Therefore, we have to ask the question: Is that too broad in an amendment?
Let's take a look at a couple of examples or at least one example in particular. It would apply in that case to governmentwide efforts like Operation Allies Welcome, which was the evacuation of Afghan refugees after the collapse of the government in Afghanistan in 2021. The DHS at the time worked with the Departments of Defense and State to use military installations to temporarily house Afghan refugees fleeing imminent danger and persecution. This was a critical tool to save lives.
There are, I am sure, other situations that we can envision in which we would want to access our military installations for very tailored purposes, with congressional oversight, that are under the control of the Department of Homeland Security.
If we want to have a debate over immigration, let's have it. If we want to recognize that we have a real problem, I am the first to recognize that, as well. The amendment certainly takes a very broad approach to a problem that I think we can all agree is definitely a problem and rules out many other situations that, in all honesty, we would want the discretion for the DOD. It is much better for Congress to retain that discretion to the DOD where necessary for national security purposes with congressional oversight and with very tailored congressional restrictions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, first of all, I think we are trying to confirm whether or not Floyd Bennett Field is, in fact, a military installation within the definition of the gentleman's amendment.
That point aside, again, I would say that if we are trying to solve the particular issue that my colleague and friend from New York is trying to solve, let's try to solve that one. Let's not do so with a blunt instrument that takes away discretion across the board for legitimate uses of military installations under congressional oversight, such as the Afghan refugee situation.
We can talk about this on the floor. Yes, it is completely necessary to discuss and debate this, but let's not overplay this so that the DOD never has the flexibility to have any military installation used for legitimate purposes that we would all agree with.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, we have confirmed, to the prior amendment, that Floyd Bennett Field in New York is not a military installation.
Do we not value diversity in our military? That is the question in this amendment.
Does it matter that we have a diverse military? Does it matter or not?
Do we not value equity in our military? Does it matter?
Do we not value inclusion? Do we want a military that represents our society or just a slice of it? That is the question.
If you say that you value a diverse, equal, and inclusive military, if you say that that is of value to you, it doesn't happen automatically. It takes effort.
That is why our military leaders over a long period of time now have valued the investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion. They understand that a military that reflects the society that we live in values our military and accelerates, enhances, and improves the overall service that it provides. They understand that that military in that situation will be supported by the American people.
They understand that it will be respected around the world where many other militaries of our partners and allies around the world do value diversity, equity, and inclusion. They don't have these debates in their parliaments and congresses. They don't face these attacks on the attempt to value these attributes within our military.
We need to back those up, and yes, that does take an investment. Where you think that those efforts are wrong, where you think they have gone too far, where you think that they are somehow affecting military service, then go ahead and oversee those efforts.
Your solution is to cut the funding from all of them because you don't value these attributes in our military. You think that valuing these attributes leads to a weak military. I heard you say that. I don't agree with that. That is fundamentally not a position that we agree with.
From our perspective, again, to take a blunt instrument and wipe out an entire department that values efforts that will improve military service, and, by the way, improve military recruitment, I hope the author of the amendment agrees that military recruitment is a major challenge for our military.
Yet, let's just say to whole parts of our society, sorry, we don't value you at all because we are not going to take care of trying to provide for diversity, equality, and inclusion. That is the wrong approach.
Fundamentally, this is a difference in policy. It is a difference in goal. Apparently, it is a difference in assessment of what makes our military strong and will continue to make it strong.
For those reasons, I have to strongly oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, obviously we have a difference of opinion here.
I would also submit that the leadership of our military have a difference of opinion with the perspectives expressed by the author of this amendment.
Again, they understand the values of pursuing a diverse, equitable, equal, and inclusive military. They understand the challenges of a military that is not representative of the American people. They understand the need to provide for that investment.
Again, we can oversee this particular effort. We can question particular representations of that policy. To take a blunt instrument to this entire effort and defund it and say that it has no value at all, that is what is objectionable in this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, again, we have an amendment that would want us, apparently, to occupy some other state of reality as opposed to the world as we have it today.
In that world, we do have transgender individuals who need help, children whose parents are looking for the right courses of conduct for them.
This measure would say that those parents do not have the right to make those decisions in consultation with their doctors and with their children.
Further, what this amendment says is that those parents need not apply to join our military because they will not be welcomed there with the decisions that they need to make for their families.
This amendment that cuts gender-affirming care options for servicemembers' children will drive individuals out of the military, prevent recruitment to start with, and is, frankly, needlessly cruel. These decisions should be reserved for parents and their children.
I hear all the time from the other side of the aisle talk about parents' rights--all the time. Parents should have the right to make these decisions.
Is there an exception for military families? Parents get to make these decisions, but by the way, if you are a member of our military, you don't get to make these decisions.
This is a very personal decision for parents to make with their families, with their children, and with their doctors.
It is probably, in all honesty, unconstitutional as courts believe healthcare bans like this violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but let's just leave that aside and talk about the policy.
Is the policy wise to say to servicemembers and their families that they cannot access care that is provided to them in a non-servicemember world?
I think that is the wrong policy, so I oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, first of all, we can certainly debate the efficient use of our funds for expenses and the cost, but I strongly suspect that my colleague's objections in this amendment do not relate to cost but to a judgment about what should and shouldn't be provided to our military families.
Now, we can have this debate about transgender care for our military servicemembers, and the debate will look something like this one, but this particular amendment would ban any care for minor children.
What this amendment would do is to say to our military servicemembers, you cannot have the full range of recognized medical options for your children that are available in a nonmilitary setting.
That is what this amendment would do. This is about children. It is about parents making decisions for their children.
This is a situation where that decision should be left to the servicemember parents who have a choice as to whether they serve in the military or not, have a choice as to whether to join the military or not, or stay in the military.
We should provide them the same basic rights and options as are available in the private sector. Otherwise, aside from not being fair to them, in my estimation, we also will not have a strong military because they will choose not to join or to stay in.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source