Providing for Consideration of H.R. Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Relating to Consideration of House Report and Accompanying Resolution; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) to discuss this proposal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

These benefits are essential as we battle low recruitment levels. We must 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source