Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, many of my colleagues across the aisle are not content with delaying necessary aid to Ukraine for months at the cost of countless innocent lives, but are once again playing right into Putin's hands and attempting to block all American assistance to Ukraine.
The rest of the world, literally all of our allies, understand that a Ukrainian victory is necessary to prevent further Russian aggression, deter an invasion of Taiwan, and preserve the global democratic order. Republican national security leaders, including the chairs of the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Defense Appropriations Committees understand that this funding is critical to our own defense industrial base. However, instead of working to strengthen our national security, we are once again having an argument that my colleague across the aisle has lost over and over and over again.
My colleague is comfortable handing over Ukraine and the rest of Europe to Putin. The rest of this House, the rest of Congress, and the rest of the world reject it. Enough. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. It is just the latest in a long series of attempts by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to drum women out of combat roles in which they are currently serving.
It is dressed up as protecting women, as a step aimed at preserving military readiness, but make no mistake, it is about a deeply held belief that women shouldn't fight.
When I served in the Navy, I was part of the first class of women eligible for most combat roles, and I know firsthand what women bring to the table in combat roles.
This fight is to ensure that women can serve in combat roles. It is one that I have already fought and has impacted my entire career in the Navy. It has also impacted the careers of our first female commanding officer of an aircraft carrier, our first woman Chief of Naval Operations, our first female superintendent of the Naval Academy.
Make no mistake, I had to pass numerous physical tests during my time in the Navy. Some, such as the physical readiness test, were simply basic measures of fitness based on my age and gender. Some, such as the helicopter dunker, the platform dive, and SERE/POW training school, were gender- and age-neutral and based on the ability I needed to have to serve in a certain role--namely, a Navy helicopter pilot who flew over water, often at night.
The military determined this, not Congress. Congress should not be telling the military what standards they should be implementing for physical fitness standards. The services have long had the ability to make these decisions based on their expert knowledge on what is actually needed for servicemembers.
Congress should not intervene, especially when it could lead to the prevention of qualified women in combat roles and especially not as a cheap political ploy to score points in a culture war.
By all means, we don't need to take my word for it. Let's see what the Army has to say. It is redundant. Per Secretary Wormuth, the Army already has sex-neutral fitness standards that apply to every single combat arms military occupational specialty.
It is duplicative. Per Secretary Warmoth, the Army is already pursuing increased standards to close combat force MOSes to comply with last year's bill.
It is counterproductive. Under this amendment, the Army would lack empirically defensible data to set the standards. Instead, per Secretary Warmoth, the Army would be forced to rely on this amendment's conclusion that sex-neutral minimum standards are scientifically justifiable without the science.
Mr. Chair, once again, this body is considering amendments that serve one goal: cheap shots at women as part of a MAGA culture war.
Our military readiness is an incredibly important thing that should be treated with careful deliberation. It should not be subject to the whims of a single Member of this House who has willfully disregarded the input of experts from the Army and of the House Armed Services Committee which rejected this very amendment.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), my friend and partner in this fight and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Quality of Life Panel.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am vehemently opposed to this amendment. I wish I could say that I am surprised by the situation in which we find ourselves where, once again, House Republicans are trying to take rights away from servicewomen and military families, but I am not.
I am not surprised because it is their third attempt to get this policy repealed in the last year alone. They tried in last year's NDAA. They tried via Senator Tuberville as he waged his culture war with no concern for how he was impacting military readiness and setting back the careers of many talented officers.
This year, instead of having an actual debate about the best policies regarding vital reproductive healthcare for servicewomen and military families, they are once again hiding behind the Rules Committee and only putting forward their standard regressive, backward policies that continue to fail.
Preventing military women from traveling for care when they are stationed in States with draconian abortion laws isn't pro-life. It is not pro-life to force women to risk their lives and their careers with nonviable pregnancies. It is not pro-life to make it harder for women to access basic healthcare. It is not pro-life to do it at the expense of women who already risk their lives in service of their country.
I wish we could treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. I wish we could have a real debate about reproductive healthcare for servicemembers, but we can't. Why? Because this majority would rather score cheap points in their MAGA culture wars than have a serious discussion about their antiwomen policies.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, when we talk about wanting to be concerned about the safety of women, I would say that when we are looking at statistics, if you look at actually far more accurate studies and complete data on pregnancy outcomes, including abortion and childcare, study after study show that a woman is almost four times more likely to die from abortion than from childbirth.
What we are trying to do is actually support women who are pregnant and found themselves in a difficult situation. All we are simply doing in this is going back to the law. We are enforcing the law of not having taxpayer-funded abortions. This has nothing to do with limiting healthcare. This has everything to do with following the law.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, amendments like this cheapen the National Defense Authorization Act. They make America look weak. They demean this body. This isn't the only one.
Once again, this majority has chosen not to treat matters of national security with the seriousness they deserve to be treated, and they are choosing to use the National Defense Authorization Act to shove their extremist culture war agenda down the throats of the American people.
Homophobia? Check. Racism? Check. Misogyny? Check. Serious policy amendments that will strengthen our national security? Far less important to this majority.
These ludicrous amendments are why, later today, I will be offering a motion to recommit, not to start the process all over but to give our servicemembers and our Nation the serious, policy-focused National Defense Authorization Act that we passed out of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support a clean, policy-centered National Defense Authorization Act.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, this is about taxpayer-funded abortions, something that has been prevented for five decades. In fact, the Hyde amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court even under Roe v. Wade.
This is not a change in policy. This is continuing policies that have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
I ask my kind colleagues to tell me, please, how supporting and paying out of DOD funds for a woman to travel across the country to get an abortion has anything to do with protecting our national security.
With already stretched DOD resources, to underwrite abortions through funding for flights and hotels, it is simply pandering to the abortion lobby and does nothing to increase our national security.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would argue that this was an amendment that last year passed. It was taken out by the Senate.
It is necessary. All we are asking the Department to do is actually follow the law, which, under executive order currently, Biden is trying to have them surpass.
For years, this has been an adoptive practice by both Democrats and Republicans. What we are seeing is extreme measures taken by Democrats to show us exactly where their abortion stance is.
I was on the floor of this House last session when we voted for a bill that would allow taxpayer-funded dollars to be used for abortions up until the moment of birth. If that is not extreme, I don't know what is.
Republicans are supporting women who find themselves in these positions. This is a defense bill. It should not be used to kill innocent lives and put women's lives at unnecessary risk, especially those who are supporting and fighting for this country and our values.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, in the advent of the overturning of Roe, we have seen a race to the bottom in reproductive healthcare in too many States in the Nation and attempts again and again to implement a nationwide abortion ban by Republicans.
This is really dangerous to our servicewomen, who are given orders to go to certain places. They can't say that they prefer not to serve in Texas, for example, which is now the 49th worst State in the Nation when it comes to women's reproductive healthcare, a very fast drop because of the horrible, draconian anti-choice laws that have been implemented.
Our servicewomen are ordered to States like this and don't have access to basic reproductive healthcare. We see again and again how this culture war agenda has threatened women across the country and certainly servicewomen.
We have over 140,000 servicemembers in Texas right now, and that doesn't even include their families. That is why these are dangerous pieces of legislation. That is why we have worked so incredibly hard to find fixes to make sure our servicewomen are protected.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment, which would overturn the illegal DOD abortion travel policy.
Current federal law prevents DOD from paying for elective abortion while permitting it in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
But the Biden DOD abortion travel policy forces taxpayers to pay the transportation costs for military members and dependents to travel to procure an abortion, for any reason, right up until the moment of birth.
There is nothing humane or benign about abortion. Abortion is not healthcare, unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.
Regrettably, the pro-abortion culture of denial--a modern-day flat earth socity--continues to deny, devalue, and disrespect unborn baby girls and boys and trivialize the harm suffered by women.
We must recognize the breathtaking miracle of the newly created life of an unborn child and that women deserve better than abortion.
We need to care for and love them both.
Future generations will someday look back on us and wonder how and why a society that bragged about its commitment to human rights could have legally sanctioned and aggressively promoted child beheadings, dismemberment, and abortion pills that literally starve the child to death.
Don't force taxpayers to facilitate abortion on demand.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source