The publication is reproduced in full below:
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to section 513, 529, and 529A of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Section 513 would require our daughters to register for Selective Service, which is the database behind the military draft.
I thank Congressman Green and Congressman Davidson for allowing me the opportunity to cosponsor their amendments to strip this provision from the bill.
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make either amendment in order, meaning that Members are now not afforded the opportunity to vote their consciences on the issue of drafting our Nation's daughters.
Since our country's founding, women have played a vital role in many of the critical support functions in military forces. The choices these women made in raising their hands to volunteer, to wear the uniform, and to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are commendable and should be honored. However, it is unconscionable to me that this body would enact a provision to force women into registering for Selective Service.
This would put women in a position where they could be called at random to report for duty before all registered males have been called in the extreme scenario of authorizing a draft during a national emergency.
First of all, adding women to Selective Service is unnecessary. Our Nation has been fortunate enough through volunteer enlistment to have a force that is battle-ready and capable of withstanding any threat posed by our adversaries. If that was not the case, we would not have had a completely voluntary military for the last 40 years. A draft has not been needed since the 1970s, and I am confident that if it ever did get to that point, we would have more than enough men to satisfy the need for increased combatants. And that is the purpose of the draft, to increase available combatants to replace combatants after casualty losses. Thus, this provision is nothing more than an attempt to search for a solution to a problem that would not exist.
In 2015, combat positions were open to women who could meet the physical requirements, but only a small number of women were able to meet those requirements because men and women are distinctly different and not the same physically.
A 2015 study in the Journal of Applied Physiology, found that, on average, men had about 26 pounds more skeletal muscle mass than women. For example, in the Marine Corps, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force found that the musculoskeletal rate of injury for a woman was nearly twice the rate of injury for a man. And research at the Infantry Training Battalion found that the rate of injury for an enlisted woman was six times the rate of injury for a man. More muscle means more strength and less injury.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of an all-male draft. So why are we doing this? Why are we trying to draft our daughters? It is just not right.
Secondly, I have serious concerns about the lack of explicit accommodation provided in the text that would be needed to ensure we don't haphazardly draft two parents with dependents.
While I realize the bill modernizes language regarding to whom the President is authorized to grant deferments from training and service, which does take into consideration dependents, there is no explicit language to prevent both a mom and a dad from being drafted. That is greatly concerning to me. And it should be greatly concerning to all Americans.
I believe it is an issue that should be addressed by this body and not one determined by unelected officials at the Department of Defense.
The family unit has always and always will continue to play a critical role in forming the posterity of our Nation. And it is imperative that we strive to retain it to the extent within our power to do so and not to erode it. Ensuring women are never forced to sign up for Selective Service and, therefore, never drafted, would be the correct solution.
I also stand in opposition to section 529 of the NDAA, which would shred the due process rights of servicemembers while taking away their unalienable Second Amendment rights. Just think, this section of the NDAA would create the equivalent of a red flag law in the military to eliminate the due process rights of servicemembers who have fought to preserve those very rights for the rest of the country. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
I also stand in opposition to section 529A. It includes a prohibition that says an individual who engages in extremist activities or is a member of an extremist organization may not serve as a member of the Armed Forces.
The real issue is the definition of extremism: ``The terms extremist activities and extremist organization have the meanings prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.''
So it is up to the Secretary of Defense and, thus, under considerable influence of the administration and party in control to decide the meaning of the term.
Mr. Speaker, this area is ripe for First Amendment abuse.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 165
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up