Jennifer McClellan

Ms. McCLELLAN

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion works to ensure the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces reflect the face of the Nation that they defend, which they have not always done. The office promotes a DOD culture of dignity and respect that values diversity and inclusion as a readiness imperative because the character of warfare is changing. With the rapidly evolving threat landscape and in unprecedented times of facing unique challenges from global pandemics to the escalating climate crisis, the DOD and our Armed Forces need diverse perspectives, experience, and skill sets to remain a global leader to deter war and keep our Nation safe. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, diversity recognizes that a wide variety of opinions and people that reflect the diversity of the country that our Armed Forces defend is important. Equity ensures that 400 years of the impact of slavery and Jim Crow, that didn't go away with a magic wand when laws changed, are addressed. Inclusion ensures that everyone in our Armed Forces is treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve, given the sacrifice they are making. These efforts to undermine DEI in our Armed Forces are counterproductive, dangerous, and will not help with readiness, preparedness, recruitment, or retention. That is why this amendment, as well as the next series of amendments that we will debate, should and must be defeated. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, the strength of our military is the people, and the people bring with them the sum of their life experiences and perspectives and what they know. In my family, I had several uncles born between 1918 and 1938 who served during World War II in the Navy in a segregated unit where they were not allowed to fight. They were only allowed to cook because of the color of their skin. The stories that they told their children about the indignity they suffered from their fellow servicemembers and superior officers, do you think any of their children wanted to serve in the military? There are countless stories like that. As we see people who lived under Jim Crow dying off and those stories are not being told, people don't understand that a legacy of 300 years of slavery and Jim Crow did not go away with the wave of a magic wand. When people show up and see people from different backgrounds, different colors, different religions for the first time in the military, which still does happen, they bring their life experiences and what they know and sometimes have trouble understanding and respecting the different life experiences of other people. DEI programs are designed to help bridge that gap to help increase recruitment by making the descendants of people who were discriminated against when they served in the military actually want to join. It makes sure that everyone who does join is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve as people who are putting their lives on the line for every American. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Acting Chair. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, once again, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are not designed to force a social agenda down anybody's throat. What they are designed to do is to recognize that people aren't perfect, that the people who make up our military bring with them the sum total of their life experiences and what they know, and that from the beginning of our military, the right to serve was limited to a very few people. Our Army turns 249 years old this week. My ancestors weren't allowed to join. A year after, when the Declaration of Independence was written and said that all men were created equal, they didn't include the men in my family, and they certainly didn't include me. When the Constitution was written, creating a government by, of, and for we the people, it didn't include me. My ancestors were three-fifths of a person, yet many tried to fight anyway. Many who were allowed in foreign wars and wars on this soil, when they came home, faced violence and discrimination because of the color of their skin. Those stories were told in my family, but they weren't taught in history books. When I became a State legislator in Virginia, I recognized that there were a lot of people to whom those stories weren't told, and therefore, they may not understand why something they say or something they do or a policy they put in place perpetuates the impact of 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow. DEI is designed to recognize that now our military is open to more than just the limited few people who could join 249 years ago and that maybe we need to make sure that everybody who serves together respects one another and can be cohesive. That is what it is designed to do. Mr. Chair, this amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, it is actually not true that people were only excluded in the military because of performance. I have already recounted some of that history, and if the gentleman thinks it is just history, then I invite him to speak to some of the men and women of color and the women in general who are serving now and ask them about some of the discrimination they continue to face. Mr. Chair, you have already heard today some of the reasons why recruitment is down, and I do talk to some of the servicemembers whom I represent, including in my family. Part of it is pay, part of it is the inability to afford childcare and housing, and part of it is a question about whether they are respected as individuals. I am not going to focus just on our fighting men and women. The Department of Defense is one of the largest employers in the country, and having a diverse workforce that is not out in battle is also important so that they can work together to keep our Armed Forces ready. When our servicemembers go overseas, they are going to meet and see people from different backgrounds and work with people of different backgrounds, colors, races, and religions, and they probably need some help in bridging those divides. That is part of what DEI does. In an effort to say that we are just going to pretend racism doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist, homophobia doesn't exist, Islamophobia doesn't exist, and that anti-Semitism doesn't exist, and that we are going to ignore it and maybe it will go away, it won't. We are going to ignore the fact that a disproportionate number of officers are one sex and one race. That is not based on merit. That is not based on performance. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, in closing, I rise to oppose this amendment, as well. After the Civil War ended, Robert E. Lee himself argued against the erection of monuments to the Confederacy. I invite Members to read what he said about proposed monuments in Gettysburg, proposed monuments to Stonewall Jackson. He said they would more likely retard the reunion and bonding and reconciliation of the North and South than help it. Many of these monuments, including this one, weren't put up right after the Civil War. They were put up after Reconstruction ended. During Reconstruction, formerly enslaved people, for the first time, began to gain social, political, and economic power. When Reconstruction ended and the old Confederate power structure came back in the South, three things happened. Through the use of voter suppression, racial terror, and propaganda, efforts were made to say to Black Americans, who finally started to gain in the promise of our founding documents: Stay in your place. The lost-cause narrative was a part of that. Many of these monuments were a part of that. They were put up in response to Reconstruction, in response to the gains of the civil rights movement, and we are in that backlash, frankly, right now. When this monument was placed, the gentleman said it was for reconciliation, but for who? Not for the Black Americans who saw that monument then, and even today, and see the images of a mammy and a loyal slave following his master into battle. They know what that means. It conjures up the stereotypes that were used to help build the lie of White supremacy, and the stereotypes that were used to help convince Black people to stay in their place. That is part of why the commission said this monument should come down and why this amendment should be defeated.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I find it really interesting that in a Congress that took 15 votes and several days to elect a Speaker and then 3 weeks to elect another Speaker, and every must-pass bill has been bogged down with culture war amendments or partisan infighting that has taken us to the brink, that in a Congress that has passed very little legislation compared to other Congresses, we now want Congress to micromanage a local military base. For example, if Fort Gregg-Adams in Prince George, for example, has a festival and they want to fly a flag related to that festival, they have to come to Congress to ask for a bill to be passed and signed by the President of the United States. That is ridiculous. That is utterly ridiculous. That is why, in a wide variety of bills passed by Congress, we delegate some of that minutiae to the people on the ground who know, in that given situation, they can exercise their judgment.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, have you ever wondered why transgender individuals are more likely to have mental health issues or commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide? It is not just our servicemembers. It is also their dependents. Maybe the reason is the harassment and demonization that they have faced for generations from the far right. Maybe it is for the same reason a student whom I represented who identified as transgender wanted to commit suicide because on a daily basis in their school they received texts and threats from friends who said: ``You should kill yourself'' solely because they identified as transgender. Maybe it is because the vitriol that we have heard in committee and on this floor against the transgender community tells them: You are not valuable as a human being. That is why this amendment is so cruel. What this amendment does is to say that in the same body, from the same party who has made arguments about individual freedom and decried what they see as people trying to impose their views on other people, this is an amendment that says that they are going to impose their views on what transgender people should or should not do when making their own healthcare decisions. In doing so, it is so broadly written that it leaves it up to I don't know who to decide what the purpose of the hormone treatment that someone who identifies as transgender is because not every transgendered woman gets surgery. A woman who identifies as a man may not get surgery and continue to have ovaries, and when she reaches menopause, she may need hormonal therapy. Now some bureaucrat is going to have to sit and say: What is the purpose of this? Is this part of your effort now to be surgically or hormonally transitioned? This amendment is ridiculous and cruel, and it should be defeated.

Ms. McCLELLAN

Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem as there is currently no effort underfoot or plans to require the use of zero-emission vehicles as part of official travel. The term ``zero-emission vehicle'' is very broad, broader than just electronic vehicles. It includes some hybrid electronic vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and any new technology that would replace fossil fuels currently or in the future. It also would ban things like bicycles and sailboats. This amendment is written so broadly that if someone went to a rental car company to rent a car and the only thing available was a Tesla, they might not be able to get reimbursed for it. I don't think we should be micromanaging the Department of Defense on how it does its transportation reimbursement policy. Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. This is part of House Republicans' broader attack on any effort to address climate change. The majority wants to divorce climate action from readiness. We have heard time and time again, particularly from leadership in the Navy, that climate change has an impact on readiness. The Department of Defense is a contributor to climate change, and so any effort to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, any effort to reduce the carbon footprint of the military, should be rewarded, should be encouraged, and not proactively prohibited in such a broad way that is counterproductive. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, one thing we have learned in Virginia is that an all-encompassing approach to energy policy is smart, that it is good for national security, that it is good to have energy independence here. That includes electronic vehicles. That includes wind power, solar power, and not just a myopic view that the only fuel available is fossil fuel. I am a child of Generation X, so I remember ``Schoolhouse Rock'' basically saying: Energy, we are going to use it all up. The more we can move to renewable energy, that is just good common sense. It is good energy policy. It is good transportation policy. It is good for national security. Again, no one has said to anyone in the military: You can only use a zero-emission vehicle. They are not planning to do it. This is an amendment in search of a problem that is counterproductive and could cause harm unintentionally. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, we can agree that we want our servicemembers to focus on their job and be ready to do their job, and we know that climate change is having an impact on readiness. We have heard it time and time again. As temperatures rise, it affects our servicemembers. As sea level rises, it affects our Navy. We have Navy Station Norfolk that is going to be subject to multiple major storms every year. When it rains, there is a street that goes right down the middle of it that floods and bisects the naval station in two. We cannot keep our head in the sand on the impact of climate change on readiness. They are directly related. We need to focus on how to fix that, not look for solutions to problems that don't exist. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCLELLAN. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Smith for yielding time. I have good news in that the NDAA does include a raise for our servicemembers, which is long overdue, but we can multitask. For all of the reasons that Ranking Member Smith said, it is important that we work to save our planet because, if we don't, it will have longer-term and short-term national security implications and implications for the readiness of our servicemembers, which we heard in committee time and time again. In addition to the climate benefits, EVs emit less noise and heat, so they are harder for our enemies to detect. They improve responsiveness and flexibility and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels so that, should fuel supplies ever be compromised or slow, our Armed Forces will still be able to respond because they have more options available. Yet, Republicans want to play politics with climate; not the Democrats. We are working to address climate change. We are looking to respond to climate change and make sure that our military remains ready and does not continue to contribute to global warming itself. As written, though, this amendment doesn't just block the DOD's adoption of electric vehicles. It prohibits maintenance of existing EVs and charging infrastructure or the potential installation of infrastructure that has already been secured but subject to a servicing contract. Why in the world would we tie the hands of our military to maintain what they already have? That is just dumb. I don't understand why we are doing it. We shouldn't do it. Previous NDAAs have contained provisions that address reasonable concerns related to the DOD's adoption of EVs, including ensuring grid stability, proper phasing of support infrastructure, and resiliency planning. That is not in this amendment. The notion that EVs contain Chinese component parts and are, therefore, more of a threat than traditional internal combustion engines is specious. That argument could be used for every battery found in every vehicle, every phone, every computer, and almost anything that has a battery the DOD uses.