Congressman Mo Brooks Votes Against Fy2021 Defense Bill Spoiled by Bad Socialist Democrat Policies

Press Release

Tuesday, Congressman Mo Brooks voted "No" on H.R. 6395, the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"). The FY21 NDAA passed the House 295-125, (Socialist Democrats voted "Yes" 187-43, Republicans voted "No" 108-81).

Congressman Brooks voted "Yes" on an earlier, untainted version of the FY21 NDAA that unanimously passed the House Armed Services Committee. Click HERE for Congressman Brooks' July 2nd statement on HASC passage of the FY21 NDAA.

By way of background, the NDAA has been signed into law 59 consecutive years and the House of Representatives usually passes the NDAA on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

Further, President Trump has threatened to veto the FY21 NDAA because of the many "bad for national security" provisions inserted into the bill.

Congressman Brooks said the following:

"I voted "Yes' on the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA") in the House Armed Services Committee because, while the Committee NDAA version had many provisions I strongly disagree with, on balance, there were enough positives to outweigh the negatives."

"Unfortunately, on the House Floor, the Socialist Democrat Party's more radical elements seized the NDAA to do things that are either bad for national security or wholly unrelated to national security. A sampling of just some of the notable House Floor "bad' or "unrelated' changes to the NDAA are, in no particular order:

Undermining a president's ability to protect American citizens from rioting and looting in America's major cities.
Barring the Pentagon from testing the viability of America's aging nuclear weapon systems; testing that is essential to deter a foreign adversary from engaging in a devastating nuclear first strike on American soil.
Requiring that "student visas' be issued to foreigners who do not attend classrooms in America (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Racist language that requires the State Department to counter "white identity terrorism," but not terrorism by any other race.
Racist language that requires annual reports on "every incident of white supremacist activity" without requiring similar reports for racist incidents by any other race.
Requiring taxpayers to pay for "public service announcements" on the "mental health of farmers" (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Diverting national security funds for "the Olympics and Paralympics" (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Diverting national security funding to pay for grants for bilingual students (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Diverting national security funding to pay for cancer research (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Requiring USAID to spend taxpayer dollars on "childhood development" in other countries (a matter wholly unrelated to American national security).
Creating a "Southern New England Regional Commission" to help New England states compete for and take national security jobs from the rest of America.
Requiring taxpayer-funded studies of "the school-to-prison pipeline' political theme (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Funding Patent and Trademark "teleworking' programs (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Requiring taxpayers to pay for various student loan protections and gifts (up to $10,000 per student) (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Promoting racism and sexism by encouraging the DoD to create "apprenticeships and internships" based solely on race or sex.
Spending taxpayer money to help "small businesses located in U.S. territories" better compete for national security work, thereby taking work and jobs from contractors in other parts of America.
Inserting policies relating to national monuments and wildernesses (a matter wholly unrelated to national security).
Barring "mineral and geothermal development" in over 1 million acres of Arizona land (a matter wholly unrelated to national security)."
"Perhaps most startling, the radically altered House Floor version of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act is so bad that President Trump has formally threatened to veto it in its current form. That's pretty indicative of how bad the FY21 NDAA became on the House Floor. I'm hopeful Senate and House conference committee members will strip these bad and unrelated changes to FY21 NDAA, and that the final conference committee bill will be good for America's national security and worthy of my "Yes' vote."

Source