persistent debt and then require that the rule be rescinded if it does? dr. chopra: it would be illegal for us to require rescission in thin our biannual card act reports we'll always seek to study all of these -- mrs. wagner: you are encouraging persistent debt. dr. chopra: we are encouraging common sense -- mrs. wagner: let's go further. as part of the fee schedule charged by the cfpb for a foia request. the cfpb charges $23 for 15 minutes, or $92 per hour if professional staff conducts a search for information. which maybe a rate set by the office of management and budget. $92 per hour to search for documents seems pretty darn high. and very similar in concept to your definition of junk fee. which again you define as one in which the fee exceeds the cfpb's cost of searching and therefore leadsmn to profit for the cfpb.

the cfpb take action this junk fee and reduce the amount charged for foia requests instead of profiting off of hardworking americans who are simply seeking to learn about how government decisions are made within -- >> we are going to■y break awayt this point for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can continue watching on our website, c-span.org. today lawmakers continue work on the 2025 defense programs and policy bill. votes on amendments have been scheduled for 4:30 p.m. eastern. you are watching live coverage on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me.

lord, the god of our ancestors, the eternal one who saw our devastations of war, are you not still the god who is in heaven? do you not still rule over all the kingdoms? are you not sovereign over all the nations? power and might are in your hands a w cn our day, as nations war against nations and people have risen up against people, use your sway to intervene in the conflicts between israel and hamas, ukraine and■+ intervene in the disputes where we have resorted to violence in our hatred for each other. and we dare ask that you judge both the righteous and the unrighteous. weigh every deed on your scale, that justice would prevail. the evildoers and may your mercy be a source of joy to the

blameless. in you alone do we find hope. only when you intervene and bring an end to our warring madness as you have done in the past will we find peace. o god in heaven, establish your rule over all the kingdoms, reveal again your sovereignty over all nations. once more let your justice roll like a river and your righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. in the power and might, the justice and mercy, the peace and love found only in your name do we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under

god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speakepro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of thele. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, there are things that we do in our lives each and every day that become so routine, there are things that become so rote as we go about them and often that includes our pledge of allegiance. tomorrow g day. as we pledge our loyalty to this flag, think about what she has stood for, think about where she has been. from the home of betsy ross, to the streets of concord, to the fields of gettysburg, to the rocks of iwo jima, to the tonedry of korea, to the jungles

of vietnam and the deserts of the middle east. she has stood in our front yards, she has stood on the moon. she's placed over coffins. and proudly raised at the olympics. she has posted on the sides of humanitarian aid packages, she flies through the air, she sails across the seas. she marchs over the land. she has stood for freedom in places around the world unt coun two feet. evildoers have feared her, those in need have prayed for her arrival. and she has always stood for exceptionalism and for that we do not apologize. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized forne minute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise violence awareness month. ms. spanberger: i am proud to represent virginia's seventh district and in the commonwealth we know far too well the horrors of gun violence that impact our communities. from our universities to our wal-marts to our playgrounds to our walking paths to our elementary schools. people across our commonwealth and the rest of the country have been violence that forever change lives. i'm a former federal agent, i used to carry a gun every single day, i know what it is to be a responsible gun owner and i also know that background checks are proven to help law enforcement keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves and others. and we must ensure that we have background checks on all

firearms purchases and i know that congress must re-instate a ban on the manufacturing, sale and transfer of military-style weapons and high capacity magazines. and i urge speaker johnson to bring these measures forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. to recognize chris and jenny mccracken from clinton county as their business, pine crick seed farm,as honored as the eastern pennsylvania family owned small business of the year for 2024 by the u.s. small business administration's eastern pennsylvania district office. pine creek seed farm stands out with its comprehensive range of seed processing, mixing and blending, and distribution services. these services are uniquely tailored to customer specifications, to ensure the delivery of high quality seed at

every stage,% in the distributin chain. family-owned small businesses like pine creek seed farp are the cornerstone -- farm are the cornerstone of communities and play a central role in building a strong community, commonwealth and country. mr. speaker, i'd like to congratulate pine creek this well-deserved award and thank them for their contribution to our community and to rural america. it is my honor to represent family-owned small businesses such as pine creek seed farm in the halls of congress, as the chairman of the house committee on agriculture. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate fort worth's own lake como community for winning the celebrated neighborhood of the year award.

this is the neighborhood that i know well because this is the neighborhood that my family was raisedraised in and this recognn is given out by the nonprofit an organization that awards neighborhoods and communities that love where they live and the lake cuomo community is an amazing community that's been a part of fort worth for decades and decades now. a community with attorneys, with retired teachers, with service people, a variety of different professions that really make this west fort worth community amazing. we do annual fourth of july thousands. and sometimes you can be sitting on your porch like i would sit on my grandmother's porch and somebody may come by on ho the middle of one of the nation's largest cities. that's the type of community it is. it is a community with dozens of churches and other civic organizations that make them

worthy of this award. and i congrulng this award becae it is well deserved. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate troy whiteside jr. who just graduated from cornell law school. un four years andwent to cornell was a four-year letterman. and he graduated with a degree in hospitality. he took his skills to las vegas to work in hospitality and gaming industry and he was a champion there. he then decided to go back to cornell law school, he got a j.d. -- jdmba w dual degree in law and m.b.a. so he has a total of three degrees from cornell university, mr. speaker. while he was an undergrad, he founded ivyuntold.com, a social

media platform where ivy league students can tell their stories. since many of them have overcome a lot of challenges to get where they are and troy jr. was no different. the whitesides have been dear friends of my family for years. troy jr.'s parents, troy and jacky, they took care of me when my daddy died and when my mama died. they've just been wonderful friends and they are a great family. troy and jackie have been entrey jr.'s brother, donovan, you can see on this picture on the far end, d-man, he used to work with us up here in my first year in congress. and i can't tell you how proud i am of this family. donovan is now a daddy and troy jr. and his latest achievements on top of the many others, he's going on to greater things, mr. speaker, and i look forward to seeing the bright future he has ahead of him and i appreciate troy, jackie, troy jr. and donovan. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> to address the house for one

minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. landsman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize children's week, celebrated by first focus on children, a bipartisano serving children here, in the united states and abroad. every decision that we make on the floor of the house has an impact on our children, from education to health care to the economy. when we pass legislation to expand the child tax credit, we drasticay reduce child poverty. when we pass our bill to cap the cost of insulin for children, we keep hundreds of thousands of children healthy without their families going broke. and when we continue our work on bills to make childcare, housing and food more affordable, we're making life just a little bit easier for our children and families. giving our children a voice in

legislation means taking responsibility for their success and what could be more important?

their steadfast -- they were steadfast disciples of christ, walking in his footsteps, and spreading his love to all that they encountered. their faith was a guiding force that shaped every aspect of their lives. and as we struggle with the pain of their loss, let's draw strength from the knowledge that they are now reunited with their heavenly father for all eternity. rest in peace, natalie and davy. your faith-filled lives will continue to inspire us forever. you will be dearly missed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise a. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to acknowledge and celebrate june as national home ownership mon. role that home

ownership plays in building strong, sustainable, inclusive communities. it's critical that our shared goal is making quality, affordable homes available in every corner of the american experience. in 2017, my home of the virgin islands was devastated by two category 5 hurricanes, irma and maria. seven years later, the housing stock of the virgin islands is only just recovering to pre-storm levels. home ownership remains difficult to achieve as demand dramatically outstrips supply, distorting the market. i'm heartened by the department of housing and urban development's efforts to expand access to home ownership nationwide, reversing the effects of decades of red lining and other forms of discrimination, or keeping individuals out. we know that home ownership is the greatest means for families to build wealth.

i stand in celebration and thank the former secretary of h.u.d., marcia fudge, and the continued work of the acting h.u.d. secretary, adrian toddman, a fellow virgin islander. i urge continued support for home building programs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. recely 21 students from schools across medinah county in the heart of my district in ohio raised their right hands and brunswick high school and solemnly swore to constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. mr. miller: they took the oath of enlistment in the military, it is the same oath i took over 11 years ago proudly in the united states marine corps. few people ever serve in the military. these days even fewer do. the american culture used to

revere those who joined to put their lives on the line for this country. while that sentiment may have dwindled in recent years, students from my district promised to serve. these young men and women will gain leadership experience at 18 years old that most people will never have. they will gai the confidence to move through this they will gain the confidence to move through this world and know the difference between right and wrong. that will last a lifetime. they are brave, they are noble, and future leaders of our country. it is honorable what they did and i'm honored they are my constituents. i thank them for their future service. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for wh pa seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to addr■(ess the house for one mine and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lawler: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize invest nebraska following a new generation of entrepreneurs. since the early 2000's, invest

nebraska have had startups against the cornhusker state. mr. flood: since their founding they provided capital in industries from software, agriculture, and health care. over the years, invest nebraska has assisted re than 50 countries and communities across the state. our state went from dead last in venture capital investment to 29th. thanks to their envision, we have earned the moniker silicon prairie with tech startups popping up in the cornhusker state. invest nebraska does great work, growing businesses that provide great jobs in nebraska. thank the good work. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. according to the recent report,. now families have hads 12,800 more annually compared to the basics of president donald trump. gasoline is up 56% and eggs up 40%, baby food and formula up 30%, electricity is up 29%. the judge was confirmed today as i had breakfast with president trump. many were enthusiastically reunited as we saw the judge earning my invitation toe attending the trump inauguration by uniting republicans. and democrats. president trump explained tod io the white house.

in conclusion, god bless our troops who successfully protected america for 20 years as the global war of terrorism moves from afghanistan safe haven to america. we don't need new border laws but need to enforce existing laws. biden shamefully opens the bords dictators as more attacks are imminent as repeatedly warned by the f.b.i.r what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of the service members quality of life improvement and nional defense authorization act for fiscal year 2025. mr. smith: this legislation equips our military with the tools and resources needed to protect our nation from the growing threats abroad now and in the future. mr. rose: it also prioritizes the military's number one resource, our service members.

it would provide junior enlisted service members with a 19.5% pay raise. this would help offset the crippling inflation in the last 3 1/2 years and improve military recruitment. it would provide employment support for their' spouses. this bill calls for more funding for their housing, childcare and health care. importantly, the ndaa will work to deter further aggression from the community communist chinese party by strengthening our defenses. this ndaa cuts waste, fraud, and abuse and ultimately saving taxpayers billions of dollars. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act,

50u.s.c.22-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless 90 days prior to the first date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and admits to the congress the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. the existence and risk of proliferation of weapons, usable fissile material on the korean peninsula and the actions and policies of the government of north korea that destabilizes the korean peninsula and includes their pursuit of missile programs and other provocative and destabilizing actions of the policies and government of north korea continue to constitute an unusual and national threat to the foreign policy and economy of the united states. for this reason, i've determined it is necessary to conti the

national emergency declared in executive order 13466 with respect to north korea. signs sincerely, joseph r. biden jr., the white house, june 13, 2024. the speaker pro tempore: referre d to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act 50u.s.c.1622-d provides for the automatic -- automatic termination of a national emergency unless 30 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the conga notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date in accordance with this provision i've sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating thea to the western balkans that was declared in executive order

132-19 of june 26, 2001, under which additional steps were taken in executive order 133-04 of may 28, 2003 and which was expanded in scope in executive order 1 june 8, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond june 26, 2024. the acts of extremists, violence, and obstructionist activity and the situation in the western balkans which stymies progress towards effective and democratic governance and full integration into transatlantic institutions outlined in these executive orders continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign the united states. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 132-19 with respect to the western balkans, signed sincerely joseph r. biden

jr., june 13, 2024. the speaker pro tempore: referre d to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a message.ongress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act 50 u.s.c. 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless 30 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the national register and transmits to the conga notice to state the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i've sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice the national emergency declared in executive order 134-35 on june 16, 2006 and was expanded in scope an executive order 140-38 of august 9, 2021 is to continue in effect

beyond june 16, 2024. the actions and policies of certain members of the government of belarus and other persons and the belarusian regime's harmful activities and long-standing abuses continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore, i have detmined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 134-05 with respect to belarus, signed sincerely joseph r. biden jr., the white house, june 13, 2024. the speaker pro tempore: referre d to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 12-87 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 8070. will the gentleman from

nebraska, mr. flood, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 8070 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2025 for military activities of the department of defense for military construction and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, june 12, 2024, amendment 36 printed in part b of 118-551 offered by mr. biggs had been ir amendment 37 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the

gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe in two genders. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 37 pointed in part 118-551 offered by ms. greene of georgia.ursuant te resolution 1287, the gentlewoman from georgia, ms. greene, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would say none of the funds available in the ndaa may be used for assistance to ukraine. i think it's an important amendment because i strongly support the ndaa. it's a great funding bill that has many things involved our military needs and even contained a pay raise for our

troops, which i believe in right now while many of our military members are suffering under this inflation caused by the biden administration. but think it's extremely important for members of congress to vote separately for funding for foreign wars. and i do not believe funding for ukraine should be a part of the ndaa. the mission statement on the department of defense website says that its purpose and mission is two things, to deter war andt7 to ensure our nation's security. fund aguiar in ukraine does not deter war, it funds it. funding a war in ukraine does not ensure our nation's security and actually puts us at risk with possible further military engagement with another nuclear armed nation, and that is russia. americans do not support this and neither does the majority of the majority here in congress, which have voted against funding the war in ukraine.

to date, congress has appropriated $174.2 billion in emergency supplemental funding. th■qat's a lot of americans' had earned tax dollars to go to support security for another country's border while our border is being invaded every single day. not only is our border being invaded every single day by millions and millions of people from over 160 countries, it's also a war declared on our own country with human trafficking and drugs that is killing americans every day while 300 americans on average are dying from fentanyl overdoses. i believe that should be our focus as the united states congress. it's also a war in ukraine that. zelenskyy has canceled elections. he's now a dictator. zelenskyy canceled free speech. zelenskyy cancelededom of

religion and zelenskyy canceled free press. that's not defending democracy, that's actually attacking democracy. americans do not support their hard earned tax dollars to ukraine. they support paying our military and funding our military but not funding a war in a foreign country. over half of americans think the united states has already spent too much money in ukraine. and over 60% of republicans do not support additional money to ukraine. even one in four democrats don't support it anymore according to recent polling. but most importantly, the corruption in ukraine is something that cannot be ignored. there's been report after report after report of money. the pentagon cannot track over a billion dollars and there's been reports of much corruption. and that's involving our hard earned tax dollars. . at this time i'd like to reserve, mr. speaker.

the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. smith: over here first, if you could. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. smith: i thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim the time in opposition and i yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. the chair: the chairman from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rogers: thank you. my colleague from georgia will be pleased to learn that there is nothing in this year's ndaa that authorizes assistance to ukraine. that money is provided through the supplemental appropriations bills. the problem with this amendment is it would cut off funds toloyf marines to secure our embassy in kyiv and would also cut off the d.o.d.'s ability to conduct and use monitoring of weapons systems the u.s. already has provided to ukraine. we don't want them to fall into bad hands. we need to ensure those weapons stay in our hands. i urge members to oppose this

amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves -- the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. washington reserves. mr. smith: she reserved, correct. the chair: washington reserves. the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. mcclellan. the chair: the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized for 45 seconds. mcclellan mcclellan thank you, mr. chairman -- ms. mcclellan: thank you, mr. chairman. last week we saw that the allied effort to repeal the russian invasion of ukraine is an extension of the battle for freedom in europe that unfolded on the beaches of normandy 80 years ago. and this was really crystallized veteran, melvin horwitz, embraced president zelenskyy and said, you're the savior of the people, you bring tears to my eyes, you're our hero. and as speaker johnson himself

has said, just like hitler continued marching when he was not repelled, vladimir putin will■' continue to march through europe if not repelled. it's one thing the speaker and i agree on and any efforts to undermine our support of our allies in ukraine should be stopped. i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. according to the bill text in the ndaa, the defense security cooperation agency, the dsca, is the account of the ndaa that fus ukraine. the ukraine security assistance initiative,propriates $300 milln ukraine, would receive the standard $300 million authorization again this year. so the funding is in there. that usai funding is part of the dsc a-line item. dsca is receivingy& $2.389 billn

in this ndaa. of $300 million for ukraine is a part. so the money's definyn taken ou. i would like to a american peope that a ukrainian group called texti recently published a list of ukrainian enemiesty that includes almost 400 americans, including republican lawmake, i'm on that list, conservative influencers and media groups and anti-war activists. the group receives money from the u.s. state department through a program called tech camp. while that'sndaa, our money is d n.g.o.'s in ukraine that have declared u.s. lawmakers and americans enemies. that's extremely dangerous. none of our hard-earned tax dollars should go to funding any sort of group that thinks that we are the enemies while we're funding them. we also have no idea how many

ukrainians have been killed in this war. we've asked for that number and have not heard it. i urge congress to pass my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington, you are recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the house armed services committee, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, ranking member. mr. speaker, continuing to support the courageous people of ukraine is not only the morally right thing to do, but it's also best for the american families. war criminal putin's invasion is a prelude to a conflict which is death to ukraine, death to israel and death to america. we are in a conflict we didn't choose. with dictators of rule of gun. the war began with war criminal putin invading ukraine on february tweur, -- 2022, and iranian puppets invading israel on october 7, 2023. we should always remember and i was grateful to be at normandy

last week, that it was president ronald reagan in 1948 who stated, quote, isolationism was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. with that we know that putin has claimed that he wants to restore the soviet union. he already has invaded georgia, he's invaded mol dovinga, -- mull dovinga, he has russian troops in armenia. we know he will not stop. we muck successful in -- we must be successful in ukraine. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: may i inquire as to how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman has 2 3/4 minutes left. mr. smith: thank you. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. the chair: e ge■ntlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. ms. houlahan: thank you. i rise with the strongest possible opposition to this amendment prohibiting assistance to ukraine. this represents the most extreme and shortsighted position of some of the members of the house of representatives, particularly

republicans, with respect to global security. too many have -- this amendment, like others that were considered and failed last year and this year, is misguided and against the will of the americans againe legislative body. indeed in april we overwhelmingly voted to support ukraine. 311-112-1. not even close. which further proves the very unseriousness and waste of time of this amendment. what some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to recognize and to appreciate is that not only does -- that the american public supports ukraine, but that supporting ukraine actually indeed helps the american public by avoiding further instability in europe, it indeed deters war. this amendment would irreversibly hurt our posture on the world stage and i encourage you to oppose it. thank you. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield one

minute to the gentlewoman from new jersey, ms. sherrill. the chair: the gentlewoman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. ms. sherrill: thank you, ranking member smith. mr. speaker, 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, andratic or. 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. but instead of working to strengthen our national security, we're 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 une 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 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of our time. just to say, we need to support ukraine. ukraine was brutally invaded by putin. the only way to make this war stop is to make ukraine strong enough so that putin realizes he cannot succeed. please defeat this amendment and continue to support ukraine. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia. this is the question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia rise? ms. greene: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia will be postponed. the chair understands that the

amendment number 38 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment number 39 will not be you are ad -- offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. gaetz: mr. speak, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in part b of house report 118-551 offered by mr. gaetz of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from florida, mr. gaetz, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. gaetz: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment creates a prohibition on the transfer of cluster munitions. i'd like to begin by thanking my co-lead on this measure, congresswoman jacobs, and many of the members who have been fighting to get rid of cluster munitions as part of modern warfare, including representative titus, representative omar, representative mcgovern and i would simply observe that if there's an amendment that is supported from omar to gaetz

with jacobs be a great idea and we ought to probably adopt i according to "the new york times," since world war ii cluster munitions have killed an estimated 86,500 civilians, additionally human rights watch and the u.n. have reported that cluster munitions in ukraine have killed or 890 people in 2022, civilians. if congress continues to flood the battlefield in ukraine with inscript ant killing instruments like cluster munitions, the eved including children harmed will indeed be on our hands. we should halt the transfer of cluster munitions to any country. we stand rarely isolated in theg these things. we're still demining cluster munitions in laos, for goodness sakes. i hate the notion that american taxpayers are going to have to pay for cluster munitions, a bunch of civilians are going to day and then years from now we'll be back here paying to demine the very cluster munitions we sent out.

i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i'd like to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to begin by yielding 30 seconds to my friend, the chairman of the committee, mr. rogers from alabama. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rogers: i thank my colleague. this amendment would have serious consequences to our allies and partners in the indo-pacific as they face down china and north korea. former indo pay comcommander highlighted the cluster munitions are essential in a potential conflict with north korea. and i would point out china and russia have not banned cluster munitions. until the fighting starts to transfer these weapons. deterrence depends on getting real and effective weapons like cluster munitions in place before a potential fight. i urge a no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves.

recognized. florida. the gentleman from florida. mr. gaetz: thank you. florida man here. i would simply observe that the north koreans have nuclear weapons so if we're relying on cluster munitions as the deterrent, it seements to be pretty -- it seems to be pretty nonsensical. i yield such time as she may consume to the co-lead on this measure, ms. jacobs. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized., mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment with congressman gaetz to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions. most u.s. allies including almost every nato member have joined the convention on cluster munitions. but not the united states. that is a grave mistake because these weapons maim and kill civilians imdiscriminantly and can be lethal indefinitely. it's reported that up0% of these weapons don't explode on impact. and if they don't explode, they become literal ticking time bombs, scattering tiny bomblets that are more like land mines and even if the dud rate is far lower than 40%, the risk to civilians, to children, to our moral authority is too great.

in 2021 the land mine and cluster munitions monitor found that over 97% of casualties from cluster bomb remnants were civilians and 2/3 of those were children. and that's because these deadly weapons don't look dangerous. in fact, they look interesting to kids. they look like toys. so when kids find these weapons in trees, in the water or on the ground, they often try and pick them up and can end up losing a limb or their life. no amount of guard rails for cluster■8w no amount of so-called tactical advantage is enough. it isn't enough to say the other side is doing it, so we might as well too. it's not worth it when civilian lives are at stake. it's not worth it when our reputation is at stake. our commitment to our core democratic values like protecting civilians, abiding by international humanitarian law, and upholding human rights is the foundation of our reputation on the world stage and it's what allows us to buildl coalitions e the world a better place and advance our national security goals. that's why we need to ban the transfer of these weapons so i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'd just like to point out that we all care about ukrainian kids. but you know who cares about ukrainian kids the most? ukrainians. ukrainians care about ukrainian kids. and they're the ones asking for these munitions, to use on their own territory. they understand the consequences, they understand the dud rates. they understand the danger. mr. moulton: but most of all they understand the danger of losing this war to russia. having their kids kidnapped, taken away or killed. that's why the ukrainians want these munitions. and that's why we're giving them to them. mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. gaetz: i would object to the proposition that the house of representatives has to outsource our thinking on the cluster munitions questions to ukraine. when did we substitute their judgment for ours? i think this notion that they're essential to war fighting is belied by the actual casualty

numbers. if you believe that 95% of the people killed were children, not enemy combatants, which is what "the new york times" is tellingn of the amendment is appropriate and, yeah, we race to the bottom for the weapons systems that are the least discriminant and are the most harmful to people who are not engaged in war i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. ... mr. moulton: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend, mr. wilson, from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: i oppose this amendment. prohibiting munitions with ukraine would have disastrous impacts on the ukrainian ability to push back putin's barbaric invasion of ukraine. russia is currently using every weapon in their arsenal including cluster

hit civilian infrastructure. ve home and their hands were tied behind their back and the putin troops shot the members of the family in the head and buried them in the yard. we must fight back. additionally, in the indospecific, it's been reported by admiral harris, this is a(0 deterrent to the leadership of kim jung un and north korea and we know the largest artillery complex in the world is facing the of seoul, korea. we are in a conflict with those of rule of gun threatening the rule of law and threatening civilians and we've been clear ukraine is the first in this conflict and putin will threaten armenia and estonia and poland. we know we must support ukraine, as it is essential for ukraine

and the united states. we can see that today as putin has sent nuclear warships to cuba, 90 miles away from our border. we must stand with the people of ukraine and provide them the best equipment to stop war criminal putin. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts? >> reserve. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. gaetz: i hope we don't have to rely on cluster munitions to deter those off the coast of florida. i think the submarines are in the water. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. moulton: i'm prepared to close. may i inquire how much time we have left? mr. gaetz: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized to close. the gentleman has the right to close. the gentleman from florida. mr. gaetz: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have 45 seconds.

mr. gaetz: great appreciation to the bipartisan consensus around this. i really miss when the democratic party was the anti-war party. now we're going to see probably a majority of democrats on this vote, vote for cluster munitions killing civilians costing taxpayers money and they're not the best deterrent but just defense contractors that makes them and a country that wants them and we're willing to accommodate them. i hope this debate illuminates the foolishness of the united states exporting cluster munitions and we'll have a more responsible consciousness moving forward and offer my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has the time to close. you have 2 1/2 minutes. mr. moulton: mr. chairman, we support this bill. we are opposed to this amendment because we want this war to end. we want to bring this war to a conclusion and the ukrainians need these munitions to fight for their f no one wants to be in this

position of having to argue in favor ofns but this is the reality on the ground for ukraine today. it's also the realityn the ground the russians are using far more cluster munitions with far higher dud rates. so don't think for a second ukraine doesn't understand, they're going to have cluster munitions on the ground. they need to be cleaned up. they're mostly going to be russia's munitions. the longer this war goes on and push russia back, the more cluster munitions and the more unexploded cluster munitions from russia will be on the ground. we have to stand by ukraine so that putin doesn't continue this war, not only to take over ukraine but to take over europe. we have to stand by ukraine to prevent american boys and girls from going to fight. that's why we're in the position we are today. let's defeat this amendment and let's end this war.

mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. gaetz: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in consider amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. thompson: i rise to offer the clerk: amendment 41 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes mr. grothman from wisconsin.

mr. grothman: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. this amendment would prevent the secretary of defense from creating any new d.e.i. positions or filling any vacant d.e.i. positions within the department of defense. over the last few years the d.e.i. commanded the community. the department of defense has doug in its heels from transgender pride patches on military uniforms and steering committees at schools and a record $162 million dedicated to d.e.i. activities in the president's budget and activities that continue to indoctrinate and divide, and showing race and color is blatantly discriminatory and harms public confidence in our military and makes us a less

lethal fighting force. for our national security we must uphold the ideals of our country and put merit, hard work, dedication and service above all. to do this we must eliminate the d.e.i. apparatus. i urge all members to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia rise? ms. mcclellan: i rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mcclellan: the office of diversity, equity and inclusion makes sure the armed forces reflect the face of the nation they defend which they promotesy and respect that values diversity and inclusion as a readiness imperative because the character of warfare is changing and with the rapidly evolving

threat landscape, and unprecedented times facing unique challenges from global pandemics to escalating climate crisis. our d.o.d. and the armed forces need diverse perspective and experiences and skill sets to remain a global leader and deter war and keep our nation safe. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is prepared to close. the gentlewoman from virginia. ms. mcclellan: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the armed services committee, mr. smith of washington. the chair: mr. smith of washington is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: this is an incredibly important issue in the bill today and we have several amendments that go after d.e.i. in the military and it cannot be more misguided. we need a diverse military. we need to recruit from all

across across the country regardless of race, creed, gender. we need to take advantage of the talent in all of america. sadly, we haven't really historically done that. we still have a major challenge. to give one example, when you look at the promotions within the military, the statistics have come out -- this is from 2023, not 20 years ago. every single ethnicity, gender is promoted at a lower rate than white men. is it the case white men are just naturally better at this than anybody else? absolutely not. so why? why do we have this disproportionate level of promotion? i don't know for sure, ok. but i have somebody at the pentagon trying to answer that question. because if you are a black person or a woman or hispanic person or a gay you're looking at this saying, should i sign up for the military, one central question you will have is, am i getting a

fair shot? historically all those groups i mentioned have not gotten a fair shot. loor to dispute that fundamental fact. so let's have at least some people at the pentagon who are trying to make sure that they do and we're able to recruit a diverse population and bring them in. now, two final points on this. one, there is such a thing as bad diversity, equity, and inclusion. i've seen it and witnessed it. i've seen efforts that throw out actual standards in rather narrow-minded racial agenda.ppen. that is not what's happening in the united states military. and if the focuses on the other side of the aisle wanted to go after that, i'd be happy to work with them but that's not what they're doing. they are eliminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion in the military. an enormoustake that will cost us an enormous amount of talent. the second point is the only way this makes sense is it you buy into this argument, we're past

all that. racism doesn't happen anymore. ok. it's just not out there and something we need to worry about. i may need an additional 30■o seconds but i want to read you something from david french who is a conservative columnist who adopted a 2-year-old ethiopian. i need 30 seconds. ms. mcclellan: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: he's a conservative and not a fan of trump and people started turning on him in his own church and commuty. he said the racism was grotesque. one church member asked my wife why we couldn't adopt from norway rather than ethiopia. shout out to the former president for that one. my son asked if we purchased his sister for a loaf of bread.■= there were coaches and teachers that used racial slurs that described the few black students at the school. there were incidents the pure race im, including someone

who -- ms. mcclellan: i yield 15 seconds. mr. smith: slavery was good for black people because it taught them how to live in america and another one said she couldn't come to my house to play because he said black people are dangerous. let's deal with this rationally and intelligently and not throw everything out. please preserve diversity and equity andment. the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. would you like to yield or or you prepared to close? ms. mcclellan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized to close. mr. grothman: this amendment -- first of all, i find it amazimg people feel your viewpoint in life is based on where your ancestors came hundred -- or 200 years ago. this amendment ensures the department of defense can uphold our nation's values, no matter your race, color, sex, political beliefs, or ethnicity, you may excel. this amendment sends not just a message to the department that

this former racism is intolerable but stops the excessive growth of an industry within the which has wasted resources and no benefits for our national security. i urge all members to support and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized. do you wish to close? ms. mcclellan: yes, i do. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized to close. you have one minute remaining. ms. mcclellan: diversity recognizes that a wide variety of opinions and people that reflect the diversity of the country that our armed forces defends 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 the 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 d.e.i. in our armed forces are will not help with readiness, preparedness, recruitment or retention. and that is why this amendment as well as the next series of amendments we will debate should and must be defeated. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia rise? ms. mcclellan: i request a recordedot the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. .

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 42, printed in part b of house report 118-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42, printed in part b of house report number 118-551, offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: thank you, mr. speaker. the ng to serve in the military are now down over 30%. the military's seoul purpose is to provide for the defense of our great nation. our military's focus should be

the protect of the american people and our freedoms, not liberals' feelings. therefore my amendment would eliminate any offices of d.e.i., diversity, equity, and inclusion, in the armed forces and in the d.o.d. we should focus on diversity of ideas and opinions not races and genders. d.e.i. programs tend to be ineffective and cost the taxpayers more money and it's been a very real detriment to our recruitment of our military. in short order a woke military is a weak military. woke ideology undermines readiness t undermines the cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. it undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether a promotion is based on merit or

quota requirements. it leads to military personnel s for which they are not qualified nor are they ready. and resource ass way from weapons and development that contribute to readiness. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from virginia rise? ms. mcclellan: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mcclellan: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from alabama, a member of the armed services committee, ms. sewell. the chair: the gentleladyalabamo minutes. ms. sewell: as a proud member of the house armed services committee, i take seriously my responsibility to ensure that our service members get the support they need to keep our nation safe. but once again republicans are pushing poison pill amendments into our bipartisan defense bill. focusing more on culture wars and division than on our national security. this radical amendment would eliminate diversity equity, and

inclusion offices at the department of defense, and all personnel in those offices. i shouldn't have to remind my republican colleagues diversity is our strength as a nation. inclusion is proven to be beneficial for military effectiveness, military wkad ultimately our national security. yet my colleagues continue to fight our military leadership as they work to strengthen our armed forces. in the mitts of our military recruitment shortfalls, republicans are focused on the wrong thing. they are busy telling our service members and potential recruits that congress does not value their background or lived experiences than recruiting the best and brightest to defend our country. this is not only harmful, but it's also hurtful. hurtful that our military recruitment preparedness and cohesiveness is at jeopardy and at stake. our national security and national defense deserves better. again this year i'm disappointed

we are considering amendments that poison legislation which would otherwise be bipartisan. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and let's get back to the business of truly being bipartisan when it comes to our national defense authorization act. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: mr. speaker, i agree with the friend across the aisle. we shouldn't even be dealing with this to be honest. the fact money is going to fund this. if you take a car to a mechanic, you don't go to politicians to find out what's wrong with your car. you go to the mechanic. i'm in the real estate business. we build houses. if i have a trouble with the house i go to my carpenters. i would advise my friends on the other side of the aisle that last year 160 retired flag officers wrote leather to the armed services committee, chairman rogers, about the dangers of d.e.i. and their opposition to it in the

military. 160. i'm sure it would be far more than this if you talked to the people serving would point out why this is so detrimental. the officers wrote this, we respectfully request that congress take legislative action to remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs from the d.o.d. secondly, our military must be laser focused on one mission, readiness, undiminished by culture war engulfing our country. thirdly, the domestic cultural threat has an innocuous name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. but in reality d.e.i. is dividing. it's not uniting our military service. nor our society. d.e.i. principles derived from critical race theory which is rooted in cultural marxism. where people are grouped into identity classes typically by race, labeled as oppressed or

oppressors, and victims and pitted against each other. under the guise of d.e.i. some people are selected for career enhancing communities and advancement based on preferences given to identity group based on race, gender, ethnic backg backgrounds, sexual orientation. it's unbelievable we are talking about this or funding it. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. ms. mcclellan: i yield one minute to mr. smith of washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i do talk to people in the military all the time. and our military is doing just fine. there will always be people who are opposed to greater inclusion. we have seen this throughout the areas.ry on a wide way back when was black people in the military, and then gay people. every single time you had some people in the military saying this is going to destroy us. unit cohesion will fall apart. we possibly treat people

fairly and function. they have been proven wrong every time. the people i talk to in the military say things are going just fine. they are being more inclusive. the military is as strong as it's ever been. it is completely wrong for a right-wing political agenda to denigrate our military to try to make the point that there is some kind of excessive wokism going on. that is not what the overwhelming majority of people in the military are telling me and others. what they are saying is that inclusion does matter. people need to be treated fairly. the idea if the military goes like this and says we don't see color, we don't see gender, we don't see any of this, that it will all just goway and everything will be fine is absurd. reasonable diversity equity and inclusion works. that's what the military is doing. please let them continue to do it. ms. mcclellan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina has one minute remaining. the gentlelady from virginia has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.

the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: i just add that i think a real diverse group and got opinions on the military, if they were doing so well why are they 30% down in recruitment? why are people not coming into it? less than the month afteresiden, the secretary of defense lloyd austin, he directed commanding officers and supervisors at all levels to schedule a day to discussxtur foreign adversaries are doing? they are laughing their heads off. i would just say, we need to support this amendment. get it out of the military. focus on building ships and airplanes. building missions not d.e.i. and extremism that my friends on the other aisle want to try to continue to highlight. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. ms. mcclellan: i yield 30

seconds to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: to respond to the issue why recruitment is down. there are three. number one, the pandemic, when they were restricted in their ability to recruit. number two because we very low unemployment. recruitment is always down when we have low unemployment. number three because the right wing as decided to demonize the military as some woke place no one should serve in. some people do listen to that message. i have spoken to members and others who are pushing that message who say, well, it's not a problem. it's out there. it's out there because you all are putting it out there and creating this level of division that doesn't need to be created. recruitment can be justify with diversity. in fact, it would be better. ms. mcclellan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 45 seconds. are you prepared to close? mr. norman: i am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. norman: i just add that i don't know how long my friends on the other side of the aisle

are going to keep mentioning the pandemic, covid. it's over with. the shortage is still the fact that, again, we are funding this. having a day to discuss it, we ought to have a day of how to fight and arm our brave men and women serving in the military. i urge adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. ms. mcclellan: thank you, mr. chairman. our strength of our military is the people. the people bring withof their ls 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. and the stories that they told

their children about the indignity they suffered from their fellow service members and superior officers, do you think any of their children wanted to serve in the military? there are countless stories like that. because as we see people who did not live uer crow, dying off, those stories are not being told, don't understand the legacy of 300 years of away with the wave of a magic wand.nv when people show up and see people from different backgrounds, colors, religious, for the first time in the military, which does still happen, they bring their life experiences and what they know, and sometimes have trouble understanding and respecting the

different life experiences of other people. and d.e.i. programs are designed to help bridge that gap. to help increase recruitment by making the desendents 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 def defeated. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- mr. norman from south carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment iseed to. ms. mcclellan: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from -- excuse me the

gentn carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 118-3551. for what purpose does -- 3551. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. higgins: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43, printed in part b of house report number 118-551. offered by mr. higgins of louisiana. the chair: pursuanto house resolution 1287, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentlthe the gentleman is rd by the chair. mr. higgins, you are recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. hearing earlier this year the oversight committee we had a young american, squared away young man, former army ranger,

he spoke on what it truly means to become a soldier. he told us, i quote, training in the united states army is meant to melt away the effects of civilian life and forge americans into soldiers. i concur with that young man, mr. speaker. respected colleagues. our military was never intended to be and should not be a platform to advance social agendas. our nation's military prowess not only keeps our homeland safe, but a strong american military projects strength worldwide, deterring conflicts, and pushing back against human suffering across the world.

.. child we remain the stron■ygest fighting force in the world, this is true, we are waning, and the distractions we experience within o o addressed. my amendment would eliminate the position of chief diversity officer in the department of defense or any substantially similar position. i appreciate that my colleagues jeff duncan and claudia tenney and jim baird are cosponsoring my amendment. the adoption of this provision would be a strong step in advancing a military that focus es on theality and escalates the valueshat made

our armed forces great and indomitable worldwide. the strength and position the sd threatened by this cultural, perhapsve by good intentions, let me say, reflective of our journey has a nation, as we haveed and evolved, grown into a better and stronger nation, with regards tn no doubt my colleagues' intention to force that agenda within the parameters of our department of defense was well intentioned. but it is injuring our military. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from virginia

rises. for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for phi minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. ms. mcclellan: once again, diversity, exiyty and inclusion amendments are not designed to force what they are designed to do is to recognize that people are imperfect. but the people that 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 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, we the people, it didn't include me. my ancestors were three fifths of a person. and yet many tried fight anyway. many who were allowed in foreign wars and on this soil, when they came home faced violence and discrimination because of the s. those stories were told in my

family. but they weren't taught in the history books. and when i came as a state legislator in virginia, i recognized that there are a lot of people who 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 400 years of the impact of 400 years of slavery and jim crow. and d.e.i. is designed to do three things. recognize now our military is open to more just the limited few people that could join 249 years ago. and maybe we need to make sure that everybody that serves together, respects one another and can be cohesive. that's what it's designed to do. this amendment should be defeated. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recogniz. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. in 1988, i joined the army. went through boot camp and a.i.t. in 1989. private higgins, an enlisted man, going through military police academy, in 1989, was quite grueling, we lost a lot of people. we excluded many young soldiers. men a women. because they couldn't perform. the united states military based upon performance. as all we ever cared about. we never had problems with recruiting in the united states army, but missed about 40% last

year, and you know why? we're not -- families like mine who have served for generations, we're not advising our yucksters to serve, because of the weakness■/■h eded in our d.o.d., forced on our young soldiers. you're setting your sons and daughters up for slaughter because war is brutal. and nobody in uniform cares about the gender or the sexual orientation or the skin color of the soldier next to them. we all we care about is that they condition perform. this is the brotherhood that we forge. it requires discrimination. we discriminate against those young americans that cannot make it. they can't make the cut. to earn oslot in our unit.

we exclude them from our unit. they go do something else in life. that's they can't be in the military. so good lord. please support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. ms. mcclellan: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady as the only time remaining. ms. mcclellan: thank you, mr. chairman. it's actually not true that people were only excluded in the military because of performance. i've already recounted some of that history and if you think it's just history, init -- i invite you topeak 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. you've already heard today some of the reasons why recruitment

is down. and i do talk to some of the service members that represent. including in my family. part of it is pay. part of it is the inability to afford child care. housing. part of it is a question about whether they are respected as individuals. but i'm 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 work force that are not out in battle is also important. so they can work together to keep our armed forces ready. and when our service members go overseas, they're going to meet and see peopl=ne from different backgrounds.

and work with people of different bkdz and colors and races and religions. and they probably need some help in bridging those divides. d.e.. in an effort to say we're just going to pretend racism doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist, homophobea doesn't exist, islamaphobia doesn't exist, anti-semitism doesn't exist, we're going to ignore it, and maybe it'll go away. it won't. we're going to ignore the fact that a disproportionate number of officers are one sex and one race. that's not based on merit. that's not based on performance. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired.

ms. mcclellan: this amendment should be defeated. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the agreement is -- the amendment is agreed to. ms. mcclellan: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady has requested a recorded rote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the motion of theentlelady -- the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment montana at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 offered by mr. clyde of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolutioneman from georgia, mr. collide, and a

member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. mr. clyde: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment which relocated the reconciliation monument, sometimes referred to as the reconciliation memorial, back to its original location in arlingtonton national cemetery. i'm -- in arlington national cemetery. i'm grateful for the support of the chairman on this. the memorial was removed in 2023. this monument was a powerful symbol of the healing and unification of our nation after the deep divisions of the civil war. american leaders like president abraham lincoln and union general ulysses grant, knew a divided nation could not stand and tirelessly worked on promoting reconciliation. in 1898, following the end of the mexican-american war, president mccline lee undertook

a process to create greater national unity. president mckinley authorized the memorial. unveiled by president woodrow wilson this monument derek sined by a jewish american sculpture, features a woman crowned with an olive green to symbolize peace. for centuries, presidents of both parts parties have understood the pup of this monument of reconciliation and have sent wreaths to the monument. this has been carried on regardless of the party of the president. even president obama understood the monument in the context of what it stands for. unify -- unity, not division. when he continued on the presidential tradition of sending a wreath to the monument. in doing so, presidents have continued to emphasize the message of this reconciliation and unity, not division. former democrat senator jim webb a highly decorated marine corps

officer and former secretary of the navy, has strongly supported the preservation of the reconciliation memorial because it's one of the most potent symbols of healing in our nation and across the globe. democrat senator webb has said th removal would signify the desire of, and i9g y to erase the generosity of its past in favor of bitterness and misunderstanding conjured by those who do not understand the history they seem bent on destroying. that's his quote. now i'd like to share latele of this monument's history. when this monument wasedicated n 1914, dr. -- reverend dr. mckim pronounced these wor i invocation. and as the blue and gray mingle their dust on this concr men ofh and the opinion of the south join hands and hearts in the labors and sacrifices which must be undertaken in the years to come for the honor, the happiness and the glory of our

country. grant also, oh lord that this monument may stand as a perpetual memorl of the reconciliation between the people of the states once arrayed against each otheronfli. men who once met in wrath on the field of battle meet here today as friends and brothers in the great enterprises of pce. henceforth we pray the labor for the good and glory of our reunited country. we have beat our swordsow shareo pruning hooks. ours shall be with our northern brothers in all undertakings for the common weal, prosperity. president woodrow wilson, a democrat, said this at the ceremony. i assure you i'm profoundly oi ware of the solemnness of what has taken place. it was suggested by a president of the united states who himself had been a distinguished officer of the union army. it was authorized by an act of

congress of the united states. the cornerstone of the monument was laid by a president of the united states, elevated to his position by the votes of the party which had chiefly prided itself upon sustaining the war for the union and who, while secretary of war had himself given authority to erect it and now it has fall ton my lot to accept in the name of the great government which i'm privileged for the time to represent this emblem of a reunited people. again i say this emblem of a reunited people. last year i led a similar amendment which passed the house floor by voice with no opposition prior to the removal of the monument. so i ask that all members support the adoption of my amendment to return the reconciliation memorial to the ground of arlington national cemetery. in doing so we can maintain a critical piece of our national unity and fill the empty spot that now exists. let us unite against the destruction of our history and

let us fight for the principles of healing and unity which is exactly what this memorial was created to accomplish. thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from virginia is recognized. ms. mcclellan: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mcclellan: thank you. i yield threeyé minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes mr. buyer: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise in firm opposition to thisrograde ivanist amendment. today is not the 1920's. 19 ooh's. so disheartening to see a lost usefore the house in the year 2024. mr. clyde is proposing we return a monument to treason to ouyingr education. the monument in question is a basic owed to the confederacy.

to romanticize the lost cause. it is not. more troubling than that it is also glorifies slavery. it is not an emblem of a reconciled people. enslaved woman is depicted as a ma'amy. she's holding the infant child of a white officer and enslaved man is following his owntory war. it's very difficult to see how the humiliating trail of a slave woman and slave man represents reconciliation. the arlington national cemetery on congress' orders, not president biden's orders, removed this monument on december 22, 2023. this amendment is for, if not four score years too late. the ndaa for 2021 required argue ton national cemetery remove the confederate states of america monument. it's important to remember why we removed it in the first place. because treason in defense of slavery is no virtue. let's a-- it's a monument to a cause who killed hundreds of thousands of men of service men

in a doomed attempt to turn this country asunder to preserve the practice of keeping our fellow humans in bondage. the cause of the confede5(racy s no more on honorable today than it was at appomattox. the monument has been handled responsibly and respectfully, according to the national historic preservation act. this would be a horrible waste of taxpayer money and in no way does the support our national defense. it would only make the families and visitors to arlington national cemetery, including our current service members, rightfully or hurt by the association of the monument. this ndaa should be focused on supporting the service members currently dedicating their lives to this country, not those who came closest to destroying it. i urge you to vote no. if you believe you represent the united states of america not the confederate states of america, and if you oppose glorifying slavery and treason. madam speaker, i yield back. the chair: thank you.

ms. mcclellan: i reserve. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virginia ms. mcclellan: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: you have the only remaining time. ms. mcclellan: thank you, madam chair. 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 because he recognized that those monuments rather than -- i invite you to read what he said about proposed monuments in gettysburg. proposed monuments to stone wall jackson. he said they would more likely retard the reunion and binding and reconciliation of the north and south than help it. but many of these monuments, including this one, weren't put up right after the civil war. they were put up after reconstruction ended. and during reconstruction

formerly enslaved people for the first time began to gain social, political, and economic power. and 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 two black americans who finally started to gain in the promise of our founding documents, state in your place. the lost cause narrative was a part of that. many of these monuments were a part of that. and they were put up in response to reconstruction. in response to the gains of the civil rights movement. and we are in that backlash right now. when this monument was placed,

the gentleman said it was for reconciliation, but for who? not for■l the black americans. who saw that monument then and even today and see the images of a ma'amy -- mammy and 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 ofhite supremacy. the stereotype that is 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.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. mcclellan: madam chair, request a recordedçdr vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to considered am numbered -- amendment numbered■ 45. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. williams: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 45, printed in part b of house report number is 18-551, offered by mr. williams of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from texas, mr. williams, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. williams: madam today in amendment number 45. small businesses are the lifeblood of america. their contributions to success and security of the country cannot be overstated. simply put, they are the driving force behind america's dominance in the world. the men and women that start small businesses take calculated risks to compete in the marketplace. it is one of -- that is supposed to allow the best products and services to rise to the top. through a spirit of competition free from government influence. at least this is how america. that is why it's appalling that an investigation led by the committee on small business uncovered that the federal government is actively silencing entrepreneurs and driving them out of business simply because they exercise their right to free speech. under the guise of misinformation and disinformation, the biden administration is funding third

party entities such as newsl en' free speech as dangerous and prevent them from doing business li was founded on the free flow of ideas, it is unconscionable that the government would seek to interfere with an individual's ability to make an aliving over the internet because of their beliefs. news guard, and similar companies, receive funds from the department of defense, the state department's global engagement center, and oer federal agencies to actively suppress and demonize small businesses by labeling certain speech and untrustworthy, tuesdaying tactics and skewed determinations of fact. this has resulted in massive revenue losses in businesses having to completely change their o including downsizing. worst of all, these efforts have been paid for by txpayer dollar. make no mistake, this is a direct effort by the government to skirt the constitution and force the single viewpoint on america.

some will have you believe that government forced censorship and demonization of small businesses who spread supposed misinformation is the only way to protect america. the reality is those same people simply label speech they dislike as misinformation. that is why one of america's founding principles is that more information not the suppression of it brings out theru my amendment is just the first step in cut off the head of the snake. that threatens the god given rights afforded all americans. this amendment would prevent any federal funds from doing going to any organization that looks to demonize businesses based on lawful speech. too seen the self-proclaimed fact checkers get it wrong and these determinations should not be deciding which businesses survive online. that is why this amendment is so critical to open marketplace where small businesses can compete. the government should never seek to demonize our censor american businesses. whether directly or indirectly,

that it h through news guard and similar entities. no small business owner should ever fear their government will threaten their live unfortunately if we continue exporting, which is considered truth to outside organization, this will not be the case. i urge all my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment so that we can preserve free speech, free enterprise, and put the end to this attack on small business. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington recognition? mr. smith: to claim time in opposition to this amendment. and to recognize -- to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minutes to the gentleman0from the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. deluzio: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the ranking member for yielding time. i rise in opposition to this amendment. put simply i think it does some pretty bad things.

among them making it impossible for the department of defense to contract with any organization that might try to identify propag adversaries. for instance, nonprofit wants to say and identify something as communist chinese propaganda, under this amendment the department of defense cannot work with that organization. identifying something as propanda from our adversary. i cannot imagine that's the purpose of this a that's what the legislative text does. it goes on to apply beyond the organizations the gentleman from texas recognized or acknowledged to include any entity, any nonprofit that does any of these categories listed in the amendment. it includes fact checking, rating the credibility of that entity. again, not banning it, not silencing it. identifying it. the fear pact of an adversary of ours having propaganda in this country, an organization

identifying that propaganda this amendment would bar the pentagon from working with it. if my colleagues on the other side want to offer a soft on communist china amendment, have at it. we are not going to support t i can't imagine that's the purpose of this amendment but that's exactly what it does. i urge withdrawal and redraft this thing more narrowly. as it's drafted it makes it very difficult even to do something as simple as identifying propaganda from our adversaries. this is foolish, it is not drafted appropriately. they ought to withdraw it. with that i yield back. the chair: washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. williams: i would like to inquire how much time i have left. the chair: the gentleman has 1:45 remaining. mr. williams: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized.

>> i'd just like to speak on this amendment in support real quick. the department of defense should not be giving money to propaganda machines. the only money that should be going from the department of defense anywhere is -- not organizations ticked off a conservative from ohio might be calling out for their d.e.i. or movement alienating conservatives and pushing it outside their ranks. there are a lot of members who speak on these bills are not or are no experience with the department of defense. mrs. luna: we in this government body will not allow a wokefication of the department of defense. with the threat of the future, i think it's increasingly important we are focusing on heatallity and not we nonsense that has no business in the ndaa i yield. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. williams: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself two minutes. what is that dispute -- what is

at dispute here is fact checking? it is not true that businesses or anyone in america can say whatever they want. facts do matter. if the u.s. government is doing business with a company that thg business with a company who says their product lets you live 200 years and cure cancer.■= you can't do that. hopefully somebody in the department would say that's not someone we want to do business with. this amendment is saying facts don't matter. saying they don't exist. that everyone just says what they want to say and we go along with it. that's wrong. you should do fact checking. now i will completely agree with the gentleman that facts are not as black and white as a lot of times people say they are. and we should have robust disputes about that. what actually happened. what is the information out there. but this amendment doesn't allow for that. this amendment says, anything goes. any e whatsoever to check the accuracy of what is being

said and done by people we are doing business with is going to be strictly prohibited. understs coming from, a lot of this is coming from disputes that conservativeshave but you can't the people who tried overturn the 2020 election are learning that. we have heard about the attack on this capitol on january 6. we have heard people say, oh, it didn't happen. it was antifa. it was an inside job. it was goveren things are wrong. not, eh, you say this, i say that. wrong. facts do exist. even if some of them turn out to be wrong. this amendment says nah, we're giving up. we're not even trying to figure out what's true. anything goes. have fun wh it. i don't think that's a good idea in general. but it is particularly bad idea in our national security environment that we are in right now. because russia and china love that approach.

they regularly feed the disinformation battles in the u.s. on both the right and left. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. they find stories that have agitated people on the right or agitated people on left and amplify them. we're seeing this all over the place. on the ukraine war as russia has spread story after story after story that's picked up by people here. it is in our national security interest to check those facts and not spread propaganda damaging to this country. dispute it. sometimes they get it wrong. de. but please, let's not pass this amendment that basically says there are no facts. whatever you say is true. just because you said it. that is not correct. please defeat this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is mr. williams: here's the bottom line. we can have all this not d.o.d.o police speech. i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i am prepared to close, i believe i have the right to close so i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. williams: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment will prevent the government from funding organizations with -- who tip the scales against certain businesses from succeeding online. competition is what makes this country great. a business should try to gain market share by having the best product, lower prices or better service than other businesses and i personally deal with that every single day. when the government decides which companies are allowed to take part it's simply un-american. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman fronvm washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. what this amendment says, it's not the government's job to figure out what's true.

ok that's a shocking statement. what would be accurate is the government needs to be careful when they're trying to figure out what's true. i don't disagree with that. they mess that up, they get something wrong, let's talk about it. but let's not have the united states congress say the government should have no interest whatsoever in what's true or what's not true. you all just go have fun. say whatever you want to say. we'll keep giving you money for whatever. let's try to get to an accurate picture of what's going on, as difficult and challenging as that can be at times. the alternative of saying, eh, facts don't exist, truth doesn't exist, say whatever you want, is not an alternative we should embrace. please defeat this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. smith: i ask for the yeas and nays.

the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. smith: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. steube: madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 118-551, offered by mr. steube of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from flo■rida, mr. steube, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. steube: thank you, madam chair.

i rise in support of my amendment that would restrict radical gender ideology and pornographic content from entering the classrooms of schools operated by the department of defense. these materials have no place in an educational setting and could harm the educational and psychological development of schoolchildren of oure service members. oftentimes d.o.d. schools are the oyariousmens have to educate their children and we must prepare the their future careers in society. yet radical leftists dedesire to use schools to indoctrinate our children starting in kindergarten. there are a litany of examples of important tbrask material available in d.o.d. schools. much of the material is far too graphic for me to read verbatim here on tloor but one example includes the book "gender queer" which includes explicit imagery of sexual acts. in some d.o.d. middle schools,

they can accs a book called "middle school is a drag," about a student who start a talent agency for middle school drag performers. they have a book that tells the story of a girl who became a boy. this has no place in our schools. congress has the power to put a stop to it if in d.o.d. schools. the d.o.d. school system serves over 66,000 children across the world and we owe it to our service members to provide their children with a top-notch education, which should include read, writing arithmetic, not explicit pornography and gender propaganda. i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting children entrusted to d.o.d. schools by the men and women in uniform. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek

recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> as a mother of two teenage boils i appreciate the need for age appropriate content. ms. tokuda: but the kinds of content that make it into these curricula and classrooms are best left to teachers and parents working together to provide what's best for our students. it is important as a mom that my children see themes in the books. this is an attempt to ban entire cat goifers books fucators to sd censor themselves. engaging with novel and challenging topics is essential to how kids grow as students and individuals. they need to be able to confront ideas and topics that may not always be comfortable to them. this amendment is simply terrible polity. -- policy in terms of providing our kids with the education they

need to succeed in a complex and rapidly evolving world. ultimately at its core this is discriminatory and offense amendment in its targeting of our lgbtq+ people. it targets those attending d.o.d. schools, some of whom may be ident -- who identifys lgbtq+ themeses, depriving them of viewpoints critical to their own growth and development. this maybes it harder for teachers and counselors to support students with materials they need if they question their gender identity or sexual orientation. this is an unwelcome intrusion on the trust between students and teachers and counselors who can play important roles with military children who are often moving from place to place at formative times in their life. eliminating the ability to provide resources and guides to help our military youth with complicated decisions and feelings they have, this is

unacceptable. i have had conversations with young p at home who shared serious concerns about the impact of of lgbtq+ content in their schools and the mental health of themselves and their peers. this amendment would further the sense of isolation and lead to increased rates of depression and tragically suicidal ideation. this amendment sends a deeply hurtful and wrong message to set what this congress thinks about themselves and their loved ones this dishonors their service to our country. we know the people hurt most by book bans are students and kids. this undermines the quality of education experience that military children receive at our d.o.d. schools. it is reckless, discriminatory and an attack on our lgbtq+ students and our service members. as a mom i think of all our whol

support and included and seen m. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. steube: these decisions are not best left to educators in my opinion. it's best left to the parents. to decide how they want to teach their kids. our schools should be about teaching success of our kids in mathematics and arithmetic and writing not in gender ideology and pornography and what's an unwelcome intrusion is teaching our kids pornography and transgender ideology. i yield. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you, madam chair. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman california, ms. jac. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized.bs: thank you, madam chair. as americans we pride ourselveses on freedom. freedom to receive information

and ideas from anyone, anywhere, to think freely, to speak freely. this amendment is nothing more than censorship and a violation of our first amendment rights all in an effort to erase the existence of transgender and intersex people. this would reinforce the discrimination and misunderstanding that many transgender and intersex youth already experience. in 2021, 6% of all lgbtq+ students reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. more than three quarters of lgbtq+ students report experiencing in person verba harassment based on their gender education expression or gender at some point in the past year. here's the fact. attempts to erase transgender and intersex people from schools will increase their isolation but won't erase the existence of transgender and intersex

children. parents across the country want their children to learn in safe and affirming environments but this amendment is an answer to a problem we done have. it would send a dangerous precedent that politicians can censor a range of school content based on a politician's political ideologies and it's so broad that it would ban schgdoos from teaching about a range of animals including, for instance, clownfish which can change their sex. so no more finding nemo at dodea school, i guess. schools should be focused on creating environments that support all students, including transgender and intersex student, not censoring content. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady froms recognized. ms. tokuda: madam chair i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. steube: i reserve. the chair: the reserves. the gentlelady from hawaii is

recognized. ms. tokuda: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds remaining. ms. tokuda: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. tokuda: i reserve. choi the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. steube: i think that thecm purpose, especially having been a military service member and been on bases that have schools for our children, one of which is actually in hawaii when i served in hawaii, the purpose of our d.o.d. institutions and education that our kids are getting there should not involve gender ideology, transgender prop dan gay -- propaganda and radical sexual ideology that shouldn't be taught tory schoole school kids, middle schools -- middle schoolchildren are hav access to some of these things that are very explicit

pornography. in these types of books. and in my belief our education systemshould be focused on teaching our children not sexual content, but the types of things to make them successful as students. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. tokuda: i yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from washington state, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from washington state is recognized. mr. smith: the problem with this is many thing that a radical gender ideology is the transand gay people exist. we heard a member of the floor today earlier on the republican side of the aisle say transpeople don't exist. that is not a radical ideology. this would ban this that. we have seen this happen. you can't acknowledge that gay or transgender people exist. that's damaging. that's not a radical ideology. i urge defeat of this amendment. idr. chopra: question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. smith: mr. c chair: for whas the gentleman from washington -- mr. smith: i ask for a■ recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on amendment offered by the gentleman from washington state will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. luna: i have an amendment at the desk. i yield as much time -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47, printed in part b of house

report number 118-551. offered by mrs. luna of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from florida, mrs. luna, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. mrs. luna: my amendment would prohibit c.r.t.rag or members or force. the primary focus of our military should be mission readiness and heatallity. unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continued to push for diversity, equity, and inclusion to the deficit of our service men and women. divisive ideologies like c.r.t. have no place in ouril our service members should learn the critical and lifesaving skills that help them and their fellow service members stay alive when they are deployed rather than training hours diverted to c.r.t. and race-based training. as a veteran, i know firsthand our service members are not concerned about c.r.t. training or d.e.i. in the military. our service members care about

the skills and qualification that is prepare them for war. when service members are wounded, they do not care about how diverse their medics are. they them and they are qualified and trained with the skills to keep them alive. it is beyond time we prioritize that we pryorize c.r.t. and other divisive ideologies weakening our military and putting our nation's security at risk. we'll gut from our nation's military with this ndaa. we are one nation, one people. this majority body believes in unity over division and merit over identity. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to claim dime in opposition to -- to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you, i yield myself two minutes. this is actually quite a bit in this amendment i do agree with. i think ideologies that are

expolice italy racist are problematic. i certainly have seen that done. there are examples of the teaching of critical race theory and promotion of critical race theory i personally disagree with. but there are two reasons to oppose this amendment. number one, that is not happening in the united states military. we had a great debate earlier about why we cruelty is down. part of -- recruitment is down. part of it is the dishonesty the right wing is saying in terms of what is going on. they are not promoting critical race theory. it is a theory they do talk about like theykeunism and fasca whole variety of other things they don't agree with. to suggest as this amendment does that our military is promoting any of this ideology is completely wrong. the second problem i have with this amendment is it does sort of push in the other direction to want to suggest, as we have seen in florida and other states, that racism isn't really a thing. there was the famous example

where what we ought to be teaching people is that, in fact, you know, slavery h up sides. there are problems with taking that approach. in particular there is something in here about whether or not the declaration of independence is a racist document. that's a debate. i think certainly we should have. but a document that basically enshrivers, the declaration of independence, the constitution's in there, too, enshrines the fact if you are a black person you cannot vote and you count as 3/5 of a person i think it would be interesting to debate whether or not that was racist. i think it was. to ignore the history of our country, both good or bad, is a mistake. this amendment pushes us towards ignoring any of the history that is racist. that has promoted white supremacy, promoted slavery and jim crow. to say the people being educated in our military schools should ignore that history i think is a

great weakness. the military does not promote c.r.t. they should have a robust discussion about various ideologies, and also about the history of racism in this country. ignoring it will do a disservice to the men and women who serve in the military and this country. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. mrs. luna: to say the military isn't actively doing this i think misleading. i personally have seen training that our service members, to include my husband, have had to go through to put it in perspective, my husband before he was -- he got out of the military, was made to write down these the top five people he with. bright wreathing down their race, sexual orientation, and ge if they weren't diverse enough he was racist. i have news for my colleagues mn deploying around the country serving with black and brown people, that's apparently what we are going to talk in regards to color, around the world, you are telling them they are racist

even though they laid down their lives for these people. i think that just shows how out of touch this governing body s to say our military is not being forced to do that is misleading. when i talk to men and women and officer level they are more concerd pacific and what's happening in russia than fighting and constant name-calling and the wokefication of our military. i yield the rest of my name. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gematon is recognized. mr. smith: i now yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. mcclellan. sorry, she was over there. two minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. tokuda. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you. we have gone from virginia to hawaii in a few seconds. mr. chair, once again it appears my colleagues fail to understand what critical race theory is. critical race theory helps understand the past.

while d.e.i. helps us chart the path forward to acknowledge and rectify the systemic racism that still shapes the present.■k let's not conflate or confuse the two. critical race theory is an and o recognize systemic racism is part of our nation's history. that's hard to hear, sadly that is absolutely the fact and case. and that the systemic racism continues to annex our society -- to affect our society and individuals in it to very day. these are hard truths for my colleagues. the compromise enshrined for almost 80 years inconstitution s as 3/5 of a person to determine matates for this body, the house of representatives. there is no other way to explain the chinese exclusion act and the asian exclusion act which banned immigration of asian people to this country for decades. nor is there any other way to justify the grave historical injustices of executive order

9066 that interned over 100,000 japanese americans during the second world war, including my great grandfather, who was locked u■p against his will in santa fe, new mexico, while my grandfather, his son, served in the military spence service for a country - intelligence service for a country who saw and treated him as an enemy. systemic racism is a history of our military, department of defense, and this country. there is no other way to explain the fact even though they served bravery in the revolutionary w war, black men were formally excluded from the war until the civil war. filipino veterans from world war ii waited for four decades for the citizenship and benefits for their service. if my republican colleagues believe we can compete with our adversaries across the globe avoiding these truths, they are wrong. while our adversaries will seek to whitewash and erase histories like the ukrainians and uyghurs,

we must do better and should. this speaks to who we are as a union. having our service members -- mr. smith: additional 30 seconds. ms. tokuda: having our service members about racism may make them it is not going to make them hate america t will help them understand why inequities persist in our country, including in the ranks of our military. i hope it will remind them how far we have come and how much further we must go towards a more equitable future, one in which they, regardless of the background, can achieve their fullest potential. we need to understand critical race theory for what it is, an opportunity for us to confront our past and work towards a better future. for that reason i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time my time back the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady from florida seek recognition? mrs. luna: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. luna: i yield one minute of my time to my colleague from

florida, representative corey mills. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mills: thank you so much. i want to start my saying i really admire and i love my colleague from hawaii. we have had many conversations together on the strengthening of our military especially when it comes to the schofield barracks. same with my ranking member and colleague, adam smith. i will say for the record i served in the united states armt veteran. i proudly served with people from hawaii, people from puerto rico, the virgin islands. i have seen the diversity that exists.th utilization of d.e.i.d c.r.t. has led to the creation of the 41,000 recruitment deficit we see today. our military is not supposed to be prioritizing the ideas of critical race theory. it should be increase lethality and readiness. it is not through the ideas of trying to create division. it is not through the ideas of pronoun training. i can guarantee you that we cannot pronoun all of our enemies, but the he, him, they,

them, she, her will not make us a stronger military. a stronger military. mrs. luna's amendment. i ask we understand we are here to strengthen our military. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mrs. luna: i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mrs. luna: i'm prepared to close. their: does the gentlelady yield? mrs. luna: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. smith: if i could. i think we are prepared to close. i have the right to close. i yield to her to use the remainder of her time to close her arguments. i will close the debate. thank you. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. mrs. luna: aid like to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. luna: i'd like to close.

i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: just as important to clarification. you are done. thank you. i think we have concluded our remarks a■s well. oppose the amendment for the reasons stated. of i urge opposition. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. smith: mr. chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 48 printed in part b of house report 118-51. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? ms. boebert: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48, printed in part b of house report number 118-5351, offered by ms. boebert of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287. the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. boebert, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. boebert: i rise in favor of my amendment which would prohibit federal funding for the countering troup extremist activity working, or implement any recommendations from the group. in 2021 democrats and the biden regime unjustly used january 6 to prop up this woke working group to provide cover for unjustly targeting members of

our military. the so-called countering group extremist activity working has been weaponized and implemented to almost exclusively target republicans,servatives, and will betarians serving in the military. .. it has basketball a massive waste -- it has been a massive waste of money and time. the defense department continues to spend large amounts of type and money to combat extremism, yet its own auntil sis of the situation -- analysis of the situation shows it's entirely unnecessary. few than 100 service members have been subject to the discipline due to engagement ins only .005% of the approximately 2.1 million active and reserve clearly extremism is not the problem that my colleagues on the left and media outlets made

it out to be. the united states military is tasked with one mission. maintaining mission critical readiness to protect the american homeland. sowing our armed forces with divisive rhetoric designed to pit races and genders against one another is not only morally wrong, it poses a very rea threat to our national security. under the biden regime, d.e.i. instruction and management has reached new heights that threaten to weaken the bond between america's armed forces and its civilian leadership. and undermine our military effectiveness and readiness. all of our men and women in uniform deserve to have the best tools needed to carry out their mission to support and defend the constitution of the united states.

unfortunately liberal ideology undermines this mission. in order to stand up to china, russia, terrorists, our military needs to project strength, not cultural wokeness. my amendment does exactly that. i urge the adoption of this amendment, and, mr. chair, i reserve. the chair: jocht colorado reserves -- the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. tokuda: thank you, mr. chair. i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady recognized for five minutes -- the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. tokuda: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chair, to be clear, january 6 was an attack on america. our democracy and this institution, which we have all taken an oath to serve. this shouldn't be controversial. but service members who swear an oath to the constitution should not try to overthrow the united states government.

yet the latest report from the department of defense inspector general found that 78 service members were a advocated for the overthrow of the government in the past year alone. that is likely an undercount given reported challenges in gathering and compiling data across the military departments. clearly treedgessism in the military -- extremism in the military remain aspr cystent and serious -- a persistent and serious issue one we should not take lightly, given the january 6 insurrection in which we know some service members and veterans participated. this fact alone should be deeply concerning to every single one of us in this chamber. instead of taking this problem seriously, this amendment prohibits the department of defense from implementing recommendations designed to counter extremist activity in our military. this undermines unit cohesion, the readiness of our forces and ultimately public trust in our military. my colleagues allege that the department's efforts to counter extremist activities unfairly targets conservatives. there's nothing in the countering extremist activity working group's final report to substantiate that treesmism, --

extremism, regardless of its leaning is, a danger to all of us and to this democracy. but there can be no denial that far-right extremism is surging across the country at a much higher level than that of left-wing extremism. a recent study showed that violent extremist acts in the united states were far more likely to be associated with far-right ideologies like white supremacy than any far-left alternative. in fact, the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing extremists in this country is on par with if not higher than that of islamist extremists. in our country where service members have access to critical national security information and assets, individuals motivated by extremist ideologies can pose an outside throat our national security when they move beyond fair and legal expression of contentious issues into subversive or even violent actions. tackling extremism in our military isn't about promoting wokeness which my colleagues continue to be obsessed about.

it's about protecting our peep and our country. and that sadly also means preventing domesti terrorism and addressing the serious and persistent threat to our homeland. and is also about restoring public confidence and trust in one of the most important institutions in our history and society. i urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognize -- the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms reiterate quickly that this is fewer than 100 service members who have been targeted here and that's only .005% of the approximately 2.1 million active and reserve personnel serving. ultimately wokeness weakens our military. violent left-wing extremists stormed the field yesterday at the congressional baseball game and in 2020 they burned down our cities, they say that we are obsessed with wokeness, they're obsessed with january 6 which

their speaker admitted that she did not have our facility secured. mr. chair, i would lake to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from florida,■6 mr. mills. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mills: thank you so much, mr. chair. i want to point out once again, as the united states army combat veteran, i had served with people from different race, creeds, gender, none of that matter. we all bled green. when we went to iraq, afghanistan, we were sitting in kosovo, not once did we talk about, who did you vote for, what relig you follow, what gender, you know, do you identify as? we were a cohesive unit that believed in service. and i think that the d.e.i., which was actually passed in last year's ndaa in the house, should actually show that we're ready to close this because it's caused division, not inclusion. i think that we are a much stronger military with the greater recruitment efforts when you talk about the 41,000 deficit that we' seeing today

when we're prioritizing the ideas of coming together, fighting a common enemy, training as one. this is what states military whe strengthened ourselves, not the ideas of trying to identify selves as being something different, but as being one. that's what the military that i served in, that's what the military i believe in, and we need to stop allowing our militaries to only think about serving political agendas and get back to what they're supposed to do which is serving our country. i've seen nothing but division through d.e.i. what are the examples we talk about? everyone has the right to their own opinions but tyler buyer had a turning point event where military members attended and were refused to go because of being conservatives. we need to be a stronger military. i support this amendment and ask for our colleagues to do the same. ms. boebert: i yield. thchair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from hawaii is ms. tokuda: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself as much time as is remaining.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tokuda: thank you. as we previously heard, first of all, let's be clear here. we are not talking about d.e.i. which once again this is an obsession of the far right in this particular body. and i would agree with you, though in that same context of that conversation, i think we ar in agreement. this is about how we should serve as one united nation. how do we serve as the united states of america? as a whole? the bottom line is, when we take a look at the kinds of ex -- extremist activity that's happening in our military that was found by the working group, this is not bringing our country together. this is allowing us to stand under one common flag. a twebt military times -- 2020 military times poll found that half of minority service members, service members of color, say they have personally witnessed examples of white nationalism or ideologically driven the ranks. as we can recall, in june, 2020, a service member of the 173rd air bornberry grade leaked

classified troop movements to facilitate an attack on his own unit while deployed to turkiye. let's be clear here. the recommendations of the group are not controversial. they include enhancing insider threat analysis and response, developing imre hencive training and education for developmental leadership, providing notice to personnel on prohibitive activities and improving internal information sharing and coordination. i think we can all agree in this body, no matter what side of the aisle you sit if we are truly trying to stand up to china, to russia and north korea. how do we make ourselves truly a united states department of defense? not one that is currently divided by internal riffs, internal extremism that sadly we are seeing too often in the fid and in our ranks. so with that, mr. chair, i strongly encourage all of our vs amendment and to make sure that we can in fact be a strong united presence standing against our adversaries across the globe. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. tokuda: mr. chair. i ask for a recorded vote on this. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mills: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49

printed in part b of house report 118-551 offered by mr. mills of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution it 1287, the gentleman from florida, mr. mills, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mills: thank you, mr. chair. tomorrow's flag day. the second continental congress of june 14, 1777, adopted the flag of the united states some 247 years ago. this was in the midst of our struggle to become a free and independent nation and to become a constitutional republic. now that flag changed over te as new states were added and the country expanded, but our dedication must be unyielding. they saw fit to honor the flag, then we must honor the flag now and forever. we start each legislative day here with a pledge of allegiance. that flag that sitseh you right now is a symbol of this great country. we don't make that pledge to a party, we pledge allegiance to

the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. it's a simple but solemn part of the day and it's done to remind us that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. those stars and those stripes mean a lot to me, mr.■# speaker. it's a flag that i absoluted as a soldier, as a combat veteran, and a flag that i've seen many times draped over the coffins of those i'd served with. i hope we never lose sight of the importance of it. and what my amendment does is simple, mr. speaker. it honors our flag. we can do this again by asergt the legislative -- asserting the legislative powers as they did in 1777. currently no flag other than the approved flag should be displayed in any workplace, common area place, public area, the department of defense, which we decided in fiscal year 2024 in the ndaa. approved flags include the american flag, the state flags, military service flags, and even our p.o.w. -- pow-mia flag as

well as others that are 13 total in types. there is however a provision that concerns me, that allows a flag approvinged to the discretion of ail of command or civilian leadership as appropriate. and this is what my amendment would strike. it would strike the ability from it being a legislative priority that we're abdicating over and bring it back as it was supposed to under article 1. this is about congress determining the flags that can be displayed at military installations and we've already agreed to 13 of them. if a member of congress or the department of defense wants to add to that list, then come and make the argument and the debate here on the floor and have a vote. don't just give our article 1 powers away to the executive branch. it is our responsibility as a legislative body in this country to make these determinations in this chamber. i also want to be clear that under current law, a building or an area that primarily serves as a place of residence is exempt and service members can do as they choose, not denying them

their rights that they fight for. there's also an exemghts for museum exhibits, license plate, grave sites, memorials, educational displays and more that were decided here by congress. i'm here today, mr. speaker, to say, honor our flag and protect our legislative powers. i hope all my colleagues will join me in doing so and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does jacht washington -- does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. smith: thank you. i rise to claim type in opposition to the -- time in opposition to the amendment. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the maker of this motion, this amendment, is correct. this is an issue that we have litigated before the house before. i forget how many years ago it was now but controversy arose over different flags being flown, different military institutions. we attempted to resolve that issue and we did resolve that issue. we resolved the issue by saying there would be these approved

flags and then by the other piece of it, which is that the local leadership, if they agree, may fly a flag as well. because there are a whole lot of flags out there in the world. we didn't want to contemplate absolutely all of them. if somebody's a dallas cowboys fan and they want to fly a dallas cowboys flag somewhere, the commander or the civilian leadership can rightly decide whether or not it's appropriate within that unit. so i'm with you on the initial part about how much you love the u.s. flag, i love the u.s. flag as well. let's be clear. this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the u.s. flag. flown, be appreciated, as it should be. this is about comma civilian leadership at local military installations being able to decide whether or not they want to fly other flags. that was part of the compromise that we agreed to, there is no necessity of banning this. if you rise to be the person who is in charge of the military inal'm going to trust you to be able to make this decision. ... we don't need to decide on

every single flag whether it should go up or down. we litigated this issue. we resolved it in the ndaa. we do not need to open it. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mills: i have great respect for my colleague, mr. smith, and i have served probably with him in the armed services committee. i would remind him it is our responsibility and that as our founding fathers established in 1777 it is congress under article 1 who has■ú the rights d authorities to designate which flags are flown over military installation about outside of their barracks. what they fly outside of their own rooms. or even the buildings they occupy. we are talking about the military installation as a whole. the one thing that congress has gotten very good at is abdicating our responsibilities. the same way we abdicate art be 1, section 8. of our war powers authority within the actual aumf use of

force. i ask my colleagues to explain. why? in 1777 woo deemed this as a congressional authority. we now say any command, good and bad, hasf the right to overrule what has been done here in the body. i urge my colleagues to explain why we continue to abdicate our roles and responsibilities within this chamber only to complain about them further later. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i would say congress has decided. we decided on 13 flags. we decided to trust the military installation and commanders to make other decisions. you want us to decide somethi different. that's not violating anything. that's just going at what you think congress ought to decide to do. we have exercised the law anti-right you laid out. we exercised it in the way we did. we approved it in this body and the senate and in the conference report. it does not need to be reopened. i w amendment. with that i yield one minute to

the gentlelady -- now you're back. i introduced you a moment ago incorrectly. the gentlelady from virginia. ms. mcclellan: thank you. i was ready to come up on the last one. i find it really interesting that in a congress that took 15 votes and several days to elect a speaker, and then three weeks to elect another speaker, and every must-passed bill has been bogged down with culture war amendments or partisan in fighting that's taken us to the brink, and a congress that has passed very little legislation compared toat we now want congro micromanage can a local military base, can fort bragg adams in petersburg, or prince george,

for example, if they have festival, and they want to fly a flag related to that festival, they have to come to congress and ask forill to be passed and signed by the president of the united states. that's ridiculous. that is utterly ridiculous. that is why in a wide variety of bills passed by congress, we delegate some of that minutia to the people on the ground who know in this given situation we can exercise our judgment. i yield back. washington reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mills: i remind thehat the f congress is not try to pass as many billss. it was the opposition of that. it was trying to make it very difficult. the reason that we are so big on wanting to try andauge the metrics by how many bills we pass is because we don't enforce the existing laws we have on the books. we think that somehow a metric of success.

the reality is we are not supposed to be involved in the day-to-day lives. which is why in we made it clear. here are the authorized flags we can fly. if there was a tremendous amount of maga flags flying over military installations, you would hear an outcry from the left. you would hear they are not approved and how dare they do this. this is a complete atrocity. j-6 as a result of this. the funny thing is it's only a great argument when it's to their own benefits. the reality is this, why can't it be simple? the simplicity thing is this. our military installations and our service members, myself as an actual armed services member, not sure my colleagues have served in the army, we wore an american flag on our uniform. why? because that's what our american country represented. that flag. i ask that my colleagues support this and we get back to supporting and honoring our flag. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. you, mr. chair. i yield myself

it is ironic theass a bunch of s while he's urging us to pass another one. he's asking us to pass something else that would place a restriction after we dealt with that. this is not an issue that needs to be revisited. we worked it out. we have a bunch of approved flags for everybody. we allow the local commanders to make local decisions. congress certainly should exercise our authority of oversight over the department of defense. wide variety of areas we need to do this. micromanaging what flag is flown at every single installation in the united states of america and beyond is not a place we need to insert ourselves. i oppose this amendment. i would urge the body to do so. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say ay those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise?

mr. smith: i request recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida mr. waltz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50, printed in part b of house report number 118-551. offered by mr. waltz of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from florida, mr. waltz, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair -- my amendment that would require the united states army to establish gender neutral fitness standards for its combat fitness test. last year's defense bill

contained my provision that required the army to create a gender neutral fitness standards for combat military occupational specialties. while i'm pleased the conference adoptedreased fitness standards for combat arms, in the24 ndaa, removed the provisions requiring the standards to be general -- gender neutral. this amendment would restore the houses' previous language. i want to be clear, mr. chairman. i fully support all americans, regardless of race, religion, gender for -- to serve in any capacity in our uniform services. we need them. and in the middle of this recruiting crisis we need all of them. this amendment, this conversation, is about standards. and establishing the standards we need to be successful in combat. i could tell you firsthand our enemies' bullets do not discriminate between black,

white, our brown. they don't discriminate between men and women. we are all in the foxhole together. we need to establish what those standards are to be successful. if you hit them and you achieve them, then you are in that combat unit. if you don't, there are other ways to serve. i like to talk about the first female to successfully graduate the u.s. army ranger school, kristen, she had to achieve the standards that it takes t be a ranger, but then goes on to command her infantry platoon and has a lower physical stanrd than the men she's charged to lead. i think that does her a disservice. i think that does the women who achieve these incredibly difficult elite units within our military a disservice. frankly it then lowers the readiness of the units they are joining. in they are op-ed she said first, reverting to gender-based

scoring will drastically reduce the performance and effectiveness:m of combat arms, particularly as more women join these units. with the opening of combat arms. she also goes on to say the reverting gender-based scoring and reducing minimum standards for combat arms hurt the credibility of the women in these branches. and under a gender-based system, women in combat arms have to fight every day to dispel the notion that their presence interheroinly weakens the previous all male units. lower female standards also re-enforce the belief that women it cannot perform the same job as men, therefore making it difficult for them to earn the trust and confidence of their teammates anti-solded -- and the soldiers they are charged to lead. we don't have data. we have 20 years of combat in the middle east. we know what it takes to move a 200 pound soldier to that helicopter, to that medevac, up to the top of the building, to move that artillery around.

none of those things discriminate based on what gender you are. none. certainly our enemies don't. at the end of the day the standard it takes to be suc successful in say infantry should be different than a cyber warrior. or to be a supply officer. or to be a pilot. let's make the standards according to the job and not according to anything else.■ that's what this amendment would do. i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington -- mr. smith: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: thank you. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new jersey, ms. sherrill. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized thank you, mr. speaker. 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's dressed up as protecting women as a step named at

preserving military readiness. make no mistake. it's 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 women can serve in combat roles. it's one i have already fought and has impacted my entire career in the navy. it's 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, were gender and age neutral and based on ability i needed to have to serve in a certain role. namely a navy help every pilot

who flew over water often at night. and 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 service members. 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. see what the army has to say. it's redundant per secretary, the army has sex neutral fitness standards that apply to every single combat arms military■. occupational specialty. it's duplicative. per secretary warmath. er they are increasing standards to close efforts to comply with last year's bill. and counterproductive. under this amendment the army

would lack impackerly defensible data to set the standards. per secretary warmath the army would be forced to rel conclusix neutral minimum standards are scientifically justifiable without the science. mr. speaker, 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 of the army and of the house armed services committee which rejected this very amendment. so i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment as well and i yield back the balance of my time. .. tbli found that insilting and somewhat disappointing coming from a colleague and a fellow veteran. at the end of the day, those who

are fighting for women to serve inhich i'll state again, despite the aspersion or projecting of motives here, cannot then say, well, they should have a lower standard in combat. mr. waltz: because combat doesn't present a lower standard. it's one. life or death. when you're in the fox hole with fellow americans, that's all that matters. number one. number two, i think to equate an experience as a helicopter pilot with what this amendment actually addresses, which are combat roles in the army, not in the navy, not in the air force, not with support roles, not with other -- other specialties, that, again, all americans are welcome and should be welcome to serve in, either we haven't read the amendment or we have o motives in place, hard to tell. but at the end of the day, we're seeing in ukraine, we're seeing in gaza, we've seen in our experience in the middle east

that combat on cannerren environments -- in urban environments is brutally up-close, dangerous, lethal and at the end of the day, regardless of race, religion, gender or else, you need to be able to hit the standards in training to be successful in a combat environment. and again i would support my colleagues to sit aside -- set aside their political, i guess, bices and -- biases and support this amendment that our military -- the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the geleman's time has expired. jacht washington is recognized -- the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i yield the balance of our time. i'll point out as i'm sure the gentleman recognized, there are helicopter pilot notice army and there are helicopter pilots who are in combat. so it is perfectly appropriate to have a helicopter pilot talk about what it's like to serve in he gentleman would agree with me on that. there's one other aspect of this amendment that is always -- that

has always troubled me. we talk about combat m.o. smpt's but the actual -- m.o. smpt's but the actual -- m.o.s.'s but the gender-neutral standard to be inhed. and that is what is concerning. because there are a lot of different jobs within the army. combat you described. absolutely. but we also need intel officers, we need lynn i guess tick ex -- linguistic experts, people with a different set of qualifications. what the army was concerned about last year, how we came to a compromise, which we decided we didn't like, apparently, even though you guys are in the majority and we passed this last year, was that they were concerned that if you required this, you would be booting a ton of women out of the military now who aren't in combat roles. and so the breadth of this amendment is what concerns me. but in addition, like i said, last year we did this and the army is tasked with coming back to us with new fitness standards for the broad army and also for the very specific combat

m.o.s.'s to make sure that they meet the standards that the gentleman'te correct must there be for certain jobs but it depends on the job and it also is something that is not said on this floor, i love the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that the military has always been this completely unbiased, unbigotted place and no one has anything to worry about. we're just going to treat everybody perfectly equally and everything will be fine. and i confess i have not served in the military and maybe some who have served in the mailtary, oh, we never have done that. bias and bigotry has been■3 a particular problem for women who have served in the military. so efforts to make sure that women know that they will be included and given a fair shot are important, this amendment undermines that. i urge opposition. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by -- question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in part b of house report 118-551.k recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in part b of house report 118-551 offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prohibits the secretary of defense from requiring individuals to wear masks to prevent the spread of

covid-19 on any military installation in the united states. i was proud to introduce a similar amendment last year and i'm happy to do so again. policies involving mandatory maskses implementation are not about science or safety, but control. tom jefferson, not to be confused with thomas jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who co-authored what the "new york times" opinion section called the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including covid-19as no evidence that masks made a difference.nd that wearing a man public places probably makes little or no difference in the number of infections and dr. fauci has recently admitted as much. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves.

any member seek recognition in opposition? mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair, yes. i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. i will be brief. i don't fundamentally disagree with the idea that we learned a lot about the relative effectiveness of masks. m myself. and the main reason they tend not to be effective is people don't wear them. or they don't wear them correctly. but i think what we have learned is that there are some circumstances in which masks could conceivably be helpful. i don't like the way the scientists in this country presented the mask information to the american public. i think they undermined a lot of credibility in the way they did it. by not explaining it in an honest way. and i think they were wrong in a number of different areas. but this amendment says there is never any time ever when a mask mandate makes sense.

and that is just further than even i am willing to go. i don't know when that time is going to be, i have not done an exhaustive study of the science, i've read a few new yorker articles and other places that raise some of the concerns. but to have an amendment that says under no circumstances can our medical professionals within the military conclude that this is a good idea goes too far. so i oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for words. you know, and again, to my colleague's point, this really e and the lessons we've learned. that information, the requirement, the mandatory implementation of mask wearing, which was not presented honestly to the american people, it has created distrust within the very institutions that we should trust when such said things happen.

with that being said, i think this is important, to lay the groundwork and the framework that you can't just mandate masks because you feel that you. fauci's acknowledged that he was winging it, that the six-foot margin was made up. we now know the efficacy of masks didn't work. and, yes, obviously not wearing a mask could or could not have an impact, but the efficacy studies were on the masks themselves. on m-95 -- n-95 masks. so this isn't about wearing a mask, this is the fact that those masks did not work against covid we. shouldn't have a mandatory mask allowance four -- for our military because of control and so with this i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. i actually don't have any more arguments on this point other than what i've said so i'll yield -- i will urge opposition and then i will yeald my time.

-- yield my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. again, i'll just emphasize this amendment is based off of what we now know about covid, we know the masks didn't work, there's no need for the secretary of defense to urge or mandate our military to wear masks on military installatbout freedom,s about liberty and this is about science. i urge adoption and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in part b of house report 118-551 offered by

mr. rosendale of montana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. theha recognizes the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, president joe biden has tried to turn our united states military into a dangerous left-wing social experiment. at the air force base in my district, there's been an inappropriate drag show, an explicit library books on display for children. the department of defense is paying for travel expenses and is offering up to 21 days of leave for soldiers and their dependents to get abortions. this does nothing to help our troops continue to be the most effective fighting force on earth and is nothing but a distraction and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars. my amendment, number prohibit tricare from covering gender reassignment surgeries

and hormone treatment for individuals who identify as transgender. the government has no business funding these procedures on the taxpayers' dime. and quite frankly if you don't know if you're a man or a woman, you shouldn't have your hand on the button that launches missiles. the department of defense still spent millions of dollars on these surgeries and they do nothing to help our service members. the follow-up medications and counseling are even more costly. the question that must be asked is whether having people who identify as trans in the military makes our military a more effective, lethal fighting force. the answer is a clear and resounding no. a report commissioned by general matusz found that service members with claims of gender dysphoria are eight times more likely to attempt suicide than other service members. it also found that these induals are nine times more

likely to have negative mental health episodes than other service members. as former lieutenant general thomas support aptly put it, if those with gender are at a much higher risk of suicide, crippling anxiety or other mental breakdowns than their peers, those serving next to them will be reluctant to rely on them, permitting them to serve also violates the principle of not placing individuals at greater risk or injury in harm's way. allowing this radical trans agenda to infiltrate our military will put our service members in harm's way. make oure vulnerable than it has ever his. my commonsense amendment would save the taxpayers millions of dollars and help protect our service members and our country. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does jacht washington rise? -- does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. smith: i rise to claim time

np tosition to the amendment -- time in opposition to the amendment. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jacobs: thank you, mr. chair. gender pharmaceuticalling care is -- affirming care is safe, effective and medically necessary. it's medical association in the united states, representing more than 1.3 million u.s. doctors. that's why i find it incredibly concerning that many of my colleagues across the aisle choose to demonize the communiti don't think i've ever met someone who is trans. many of them seek to restrict, deny and dispairng gender affirming care but have never met anyone who is actually -- who has actually received it. so forgive me if i'm not convinced by their naive talking points when this is something i know about personally. earlier this year, my trans brother received gender affirming surgery after consultations with his doctor. he'll tell you that it was life changing. and that's the case for so many in the trans community. and he'll tell you, contrary to

my colleague's remarks, he knows who he is. his body just doesn't match that. prohibiting g members not only compromises our national security, but it also hinders our recruit the and retention efforts. trans people are adults in the . to serve in the armed forces. so why would we want to alienate this patriotic selfless community from serving? and when service members get the medical care that they need, they can focus on their mission without distraction. but by denying service members this medically necessary care, this amendment will hurt our military readiness and likely lead to service members leaving the military. our efforts toru be severely weakend. this amendment is not only bigoted, but shortsighted and hurt our national security. listen to the transgender

community and oppose this hateful amendment. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. mr. rose: these are the facts a report commissioned found servicemembers with claims of gender dysphoria are eight times more likely to attempt suicide than other servicemembers. mr. rosendale: about 5.78 million on psychotherapy demonstrating that vast majority of investment associated with these gender is for psychotherapy thereafter. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from virginia. ms. mcclellan: have you ever wondered why transgender

individuals are more likely to have mental health issues or commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide. not just our servicemembers but also depend ants. maybe the reason is the harassment and deem niecessation they have faced from the far right. maybe it's for the same for a stunned who i represent 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 because of the have it try ole we have heard on this floor against the transgender committee tells them you are not valuable as a human b. why thiss so cruel. what this amendment does is say

in the same body from the same party that have 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 health care decisions. and in doing so, it i so broadly written, it leaves it up to i don't know who to decide what the purpose of the hormone treatment 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 reesms men pause may need hormonal therapy and someone is

going to say, what is the purpose of this? is this your effort? this amendment is ridiculous and cruel and should be defeated. the air: the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: pressures of war are extreme and if you are troubled during peace time that you don't know if you are a man or woman i can't imagine the pressures of what war would do to you. 160 surgeries that were taking place in the military and that included by 23,000 psychotherapy -- visits. if you don't understand if you are a man or woman, you should not have your hand on the button that launches missiles. i rerve. mr.smith: i am prepared to

close. the chair: the gentleman from montana. can i inquire how much time i left? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: it is very simple that the taxpayers should not be bound by paying the expenses that are associated with these transgender surgeries fortary. the next thing is -- and this is a larger question, should these people that are so confused, they don't understand whether they are a man or woman even be. this is putting lives at risk and putting colleagues at risk and something that has been hurting the recruitment efforts for the military since the biden administration has taken over and quite frankly the taxpayers shouldn't be bound by these obligations and the people that are serving in the military shouldn't be exposed to this

i request that my colleagues please support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: the united states congress shouldn't be making medical decisions and that's what this amendment is telling l services they should provide. second, transpeople have served in the military for a long time, even before it was officially allowed and certainly now they continue to serve with the same honor and dignity of everybody else who has served. to imply otherwise is completely wrong. various people need health care and we stat of how much the united states spends for people who are in the military. this amendment is wrong. this is bigoted and

discriminatory against transpeople who serve in the military very effectively and has congress making medical decisions that should be left up to medical professionals and their patients. i urge this and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the chair, the ayes have mr.smith: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in part b of house report 118-551, for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in part b of house

report 118-551 offered by mr. normanf south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina, member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: my amendment prohibits the provision of gender transition procedures including surgery or medication through the exceptional family medical program. i heard it all when my good friend on the other side that the medical profession was for the surgery like saying the owners of a gas station are for gasoline production. it's given. price tag up here.ything has a and when i hear viagra, i hope and pray sri ag is not

included. the exceptional family member program provides resourceslitarl needs. this program is designed for military spouses and children who require ongoing or medical with individuals with asthma, respiratory illness, intellectual d the military has tried to this m to get transgender procedures passed. the air force used this for families who want to help their child transition. i would just say you are taking -- a list of other inclut already exists that they are paying for and to take money away from the things i will nt is unheard of. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. for what purpose does the

gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr.smith: i rise to claim time in oppositionbw to the amendmen. mr.smith: i yield a couple of quick moments before i yield to ms. jacobs. and doctors being like a gas station. a doctor is going to operate when you show up. that's not how it works. i have been through a number of operations. i don't agree with the decisions that doctors make but i will stand up to the medical profession they are not selling the product. th are not just going to operate on anyone who walks in. it is the purpose of a medical doctor to make a medical determination about what the proper treatment is not to sell as much of is is humanly possible. i stand by what i said earlier. congress should not be telling doctors what medical decisions they should make. and if you have a doctor who is

passing out treatment like a gas station, please report him and make sure that license is taken away. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california. ms. jacobs: i think we can agree we want our military dependents to be safety and healthy. that is a crucial part of our national security. if our servicemembers are worried about our families they are not going to be focused on the mission we need to do them. military dpants should have care that is promotes and health o■?f transgender people. now i highly doubt my colleagues who support this amendment who personally received transgender affirming care and how hard or easy it was. i have. earlier this year, my transgender brother had transgender affirming care

surgery. he will tell you it is life changing and improved his relationship with his body, life and society and will tell yt wasn't easy to get it. that confidence andappiness that my brother has, that's what i want for everyone, especially in the lgbtq plus who are judged, discriminated against and hear the hateful things coming from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. denying servicemembers to provide care for their children, this amendment will lead servicemembers to leave the military and we have already seen this happen. servicemembers have had to alter their career or leave the service all together in order t. federal government should not get in the middle.

this will lead to costly litigation. and denying transgender the same care and because the ban would violate the rights of parents to provide best practice medical care for their children. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: the medical doctors are making money on this. gas stations make money. the free enterprise system does that. they are getting paid for it. the mail tear is meant to defend this country and gotten away from that and the american people are so sick of. i brought up 168 generals and people active in the military, that's why the recruitment is down 30%.

just what you are trying to oppose and on my particular amendment, you have to realize this program was meant to help families with special needs. now, if you don't know whether you are a man or woman, that's fine, and you pay for it, not the government for money we don't have. and let me name you some of the things that are included now that by wanting to provide transgender surgery that takes for these programs and guarantee and do a poll of everyone in the balcony, do you want to do away with life threatening conditions for transgender surgery? do you want -- take asthma, dia? do intellectual development delays, the that for transgender surgery?

attention deficient sit disorder, you want to take away, chronic conditions that requires or environmentally architectural considerations. that's everything that is included and you want to take money money for someone who doesn't know they are a man or woman. i the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i yield myself two minutes. i want to follow that last claim of logic. so basically, if a transperson receives medical care it is taking medical care away from somebody else? if a cancer patient is receiving medical care, that's taking it away from somebody else? that is not true. that is not the choice. if you need health care, you will get health care. there will be debate about what

is appropriate. but to deny transpeople and in this case we are talking about children of people in the military being denied health care. we shouldn't be denying health care from children whose medical professionals say they need and it is not a choice of taking it away from somebody else. that's not the way our health care system works. what this amendment does is clearly take health care away of families that a medical doctor has determined that they need. . . . . i want to come back to the idea that our military destroyed by wokeness. as we stand on the floor, we have thethey're serving ably als the world and is incredibly talented and incredibly effective. i'm offended the other side of

the aisle wants to continue to denigrate our military because of a right-wing agenda to wage a culture war. that's not what's going os mili. recruitment is a problem, primarily because of how good the economy is, and because for a period of time they weren't able to recruit because of covid. and also a little bit of a part because the right wing is bashing on the military 24/7. are there some people in the military who long for the days when gay people and transpeople and women of color were not in position to compete with them? are. i'm also quite certain it's a relatively smallv number. all i'm trying to do -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. to make sure we have equal access to the military -- the speaker pro tee: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: then i yield back. i apologize. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

mr. norman: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: one and a quarter minutes. mr. norman: what you're doing is going against what this program is. i'm offended you want to take money from the cancer patient. if you're telling me the cancer patient goes behind someone who does not know who is a man or a woman, you have a problem. the medical treatments can range from 8,000 to $100,000 and you want to take it away from someone with a disability? the fact we have to debate this is amazing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.

mr. smith: mr. chair? the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to rule 18, the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendmentk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 54 printed in report 118-551 offered by mr. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. breechen, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chairgentleman from oklahom. mr. breechen: this amendment would prohibit drag shows and drag queen story hours at u.s. military bases and installations. this measure is essential to ensure our mitd on the core mis.

president biden and his department of defense have hosted multiple drag show events as the left continues to push a sexual agenda on service members, showing total disregard for our troops who signed up to protect this country, not to be subjected to far lefticies. this agenda doesn't stop at our men and women in uniform. the biden administration is also targeting young children in an effort to spread its views of its sexual agenda. in 2022, a military base in virginia hosted a kid friendly diversity, equity, and inclusion summer festival, and i'll use air quotes, for children. and another base scheduled a drag queen story hour for children. our country depends on a lethal military capable to rising to any occasion, just as the allied forces did 80 years ago when they stormed the beaches of normandy and exemplified patriotism and courage.

it seems the biden administration and its d.o.d. is more focused on promoting drag queens and waving the rainbow flag and a cultural war preparing them for the cultural battle instead of advancing the red, white, and blue on a real battlefield. it's nothing short of an insult to our troops. it's a and those who died fighting for this country. what would general eisenhower or general macarthur say? i believe they'd encourage a return to thousands of years of history of societal norms. not the current sexual fad that is in tandem with our armed services not being able to meet their recruitment goals being down 30% in the biden administration. young men who make up the bulk of our fighting forcesrethey'ree girl in a barbie world. although the d.o.d. indicated it would stop hosting drag queen

events last year, this informal decision lacks the force of law and only made after significant public backlash. we have every reason to believe the d.o.d. would resume theset they could get away with it. we should codify this and not give them that option. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. is there someone in opposition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. mr. speaker, on behalf of the lbgtq+ families, gay people who serve in our country, and likes to have fun, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. we know there are a lot of threats to the health and well-being of our service members, poisoned water on military bases, toxic mold in military housing, ptsd and suicide. so i'm stunned to see that the

top republican idea to protect our troops is actually to ban drag shows. mr. speaker, my republican colleagues want us to believe that gays are trying to murder us. they want to believe that drag is harmful or immoral or wrong. this is completely ridiculous. mr. garcia: i hate to break it to my republicanagues, but lbgtq+ people have fought and died for this country since the american revolution. even if they were forced to hide their true selfs. we can document and celebrate drag shows on military bases, and they've been celebrated since the 1,800 -- 1800's and both world wars. the red cross hosted drag shows during world war ii. the army that defeated hitler and saved the world included drag queens. ronald reagan starred in a movie "this is the army" a story about world war ii that featured four drag performances. he's not the only republican

president who knew drag could be fun and sometimes silly. drag is art, drag is culture, and drag is a form of comedy. it's not a crime or a form of pornography. one of our colleague, the gentlewoman from georgia, shows photos of revenge form in her oversight committee. if we want to ban porn in public facilities, ban that. we know inclusion in our military is good for our country. we want to welcome anyone who wants to serve. i would invite my republican colleagues to join me at a drag show in the future. you'll see that drag is not a threat to anyone. and i'm convinced that some of you would really enjoy it. it's my deep concern that this amendment is legitimizing an extremist narrative that drag performances are somehow harmful or threatening. drag is art. so, mr. speaker, this amendment should sashay away.

i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. breechen: holding these events in federal facilities is not a suitable use of d.o.d. money. this passed in the ndaa. and american tax dollars should not be used to men to dress up as women in sexualized performances. i take exception to the comment that this is something that was occurring during the greatest generation. at may be referenced is something totally different than something now that iss culture. with that, i yield, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garcia: i want to remind my colleagues, art should be celebrated in this country. there are all forms of art,

whether you go to a live theater performance or whether you're seeing something in a gallery or enjoying a sculpture or -- a sculpture or a music performance, it's a form of art. it's an art form that's been around the country in hundreds of years and on the military bases since the u.s.o. was performing these similar types of shows. i want to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is■3 te only member with time remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment is a culture war stunt that does nothing to make our troops safer. it politicizes our military and silences service members who want to be themselves. it's big government telling our troops they're not smart enough to decide if they want to attend a particular type of entertainment. and if congress knows best in what's funny or may not be funny. we should respect drag artists for the talent and artists they are. we should focus on solutions to

make life better for our troops and country. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 118-551. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. van duyne: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 118-551, offered by ms. van duyne of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. van duyne, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes e

ms. van duyne: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. in 2022, president biden offered new defense policies in taxpayer dollars to fund time off, lodging and travel expenses for abortions. my amendment would return to the hyde protections codified in law. in recent years, president of mt colleagues have faced a -- have encouraged taxpayer funded abortion on demand. here we are. they can't find a single limitation they would support on elective abortions. republicans are offering solutions that support women throughout their pregnancy. and my colleagues on the other side are taking the anti-woman astance not enforcing the law

but i want to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you,. i'm now honored to yield one minute to my friend and partner in this fight, the ranking member of the house armed services, representative houlahan. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. houlahan: thank you, it saddens me to be here again having the same conversation we had standing before this chamber as a woman yet again, a woman who actually served and actually wore a uniform and was a mother in uniform. here i am yet again defending our service women and our member's right to seek the medical care they need when

they're serving our country. i'm sick and tired of members who have never served, telling service members the same service members that they are proud to publicly express their purported support for that they don't deserve the financial or otherwise freedom to seek the medical care they and their family members deserve when they need it. and to those who have served in uniform, and most are men who are here on this floor, and still don't wish to afford the service to members the availability to seek reproductive care, i am enormously disappointed with them as well. we all know how difficult military life is. if a woman in uniform or a member of a family who is in uniform says it's not the right time perhaps to start a familyl or has a medical reason otherwise, it is her and her -- may i have a little bit mor time? >> mr. speaker, i now yield 30 seconds to my colleague.

ms. houlahan: it is hers and hers alone decision what to do here. i introduce the march act which would expand access to abortion services at military facilities. we should support our family i e on this amendment if it passes. ms. van duyne: the language in this bill is straightforward and roll back travel■ policies shoud under the october, 2022 memorandum and democrats and republican administrations have agreed. this bill has nothing to do with preventing people getting medical care. abortion is not medical care for the baby but ends the lives through dismemberment or chemical poisoning. and even for late term abortions

that inflacket pain. this human rights abortion should not be paid for. abortion is not medical care for the mother. this can lead to physical complications. a recent study found 60% of women f of pressure. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey is recognized. >> i yield as■ much time as. i am opposed. i wish i could say i am surprised where once again, house republicans are trying to take rights away from service women and military families but i'm not. it is their third attempt to get this policy repealed in the last year alone. they tried in last year's ndaa and senator tuberville as he waged culture war and setting

back the careers of many talented officers and this year, instead of having an actualde ts regarding reproductive health care for service women they are hiding behind the rules committee and putting their regressive backward policies that continue to fail. preventing military women for traveling for care when they are stationed in states with draconian abortion lives and it is not pro-life to make it harder for women to access basic health care and do it at the expense of women who already risk their lives in service to their country. i wish we could treat this issue with the seriousness it you deserves and debate for reproductive health care. this majority would score cheap

points and culture wars about antiwomen policies. with that, i rair: the gentlelam texas is recognized. did. ms. van duyne: when we talk about being concerned with the safety of women, i would say when we are looking at statistics, if you look at far more accurate statistics study after study a womans more likely to die from abortion than child birth. we are doing in this is going back to the law enforcing the law of not having taxpayer funded abortions. nothing to do with limiting health care but everything to do with following the law and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new jersey. >> may i request how much time i have left? the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey has 2 minutes and the

gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes. >> mr. chair, amendments like this cheapen the national defense authorization act and make america look weak and demean this body. once again this majority is not treating matters of national security with the seriousness with which they deserve to be treated and choose to use this to their culture war down the throats, home yeoh phobia, check. racism, check, miss ogeny, check. and ludicrous amendments later today i will be offering a motion to recommit not to start the process all or but give our servicemembers the serious

policy national defense authorization act that we passed out of the armed servicesrejectd support a clean policy-centered national defense authorization act. and i reserve. ms. van duyne: this is about taxpayer funded abortions. the hyde amendment was upheld under roe v. weighed. this is policies supported by democrats and republicans and ask my colleagues tell me please supporting and paying out of d.o.d. for a woman to travel across the country has anything to do with protecting our national security. under stretched d.o.d. resources already to underwrite for flights and hotels is pandering to the abortion lobby and does nothing to increase our national security. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey is recognized.

>> i have the right to close. ms. van duyne: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey is prepared to close. ms. van duyne: this was an amendment that last year passed. it was taken out by the senate. it is necessary. all we're asking the department to do is actually follow the law which under executive order currently, for years this has been an adoptive process by democrats and republicans. what we are seeing are extreme measures to show us where their abortion stance was. i was on the floor of this house last session and we voted for a bill that would allow taxpayer-funded dollars to be used for abortions up until the moment of birth. republicans are supporting support for women who find themselves these. this is a defense bill that should not be used to kill innocent lives and put women's

lives at unnecessary risk especially those that are supporting and fighting. with that, i yield. the chair: the gentlelady from new jersey is recognized. >> in the advent of the overturning of roe we have seen a race to the bottom of reproductive health care in too many states and attempts to implement a nationwide abortion ban by republicans and this is really dangerous to our service women who are given orders to go to certain places and can't say i don't want to serve in acres as which is the 49th worst state in the nation when it comes to women's reproductive health care because of the horrible draconian laws that have been implemented. our service member are ordered to states like this and don't

have access to reproductive health care. we see how this culture war agenda has threatened service women. we have 140,000 service women in texan doesn't include their families. these are dangerous pieces of legislation and that's why we have worked hard to find fixes to make sure our service women are protected. i urge a i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. >> ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seekitio? mr. rogers: pursuant to h. res. 1287 i offer amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2 consisting of 4, 9, 10, 18, 38, 39, 57, 58, 61, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 1124, 125, 126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 130, 135, 1136, 138, 139, 140,2, 143, 144,

148, 149, # 150, 151,■1■ 152, 1, 154, 155, 1156, 1 # 57, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 and 176 printed in part b of house report 118-551 offered by mr. rogers of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from alabama, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers and the gentleman from washington each will control 20 minutes. mr. rogers: i yield five minutes to my friend and colleague from

ohio, mr. davidson. mr. davidson: my amendment be called the define the mission act for ukraine or define the mission really. we voted on this last summer and 129 of our colleagues agreed that the administration should define the mission. before this, this might have been pal doctrine for years before we gen into a war we should define what we are trying to define. since the inception, as much as it takes as long as it t back i4 when the administration at that time decided we were going to shift from going after the terrorists that bombed the united states on 9/11 or used airplanes to target our citizens, they shifted in 2004

to rebuilding afghanistan. and the phrase they used was much as it takes, as long as it takes. that was used to keep the mission going until the biden administration left in the most disastrous way possible by taking the military out first and leaving civilians behind. that was on august 31 of 2021. the very next day on september 1, 2021, the biden administration entered into a strategic partnership agreement with ukraine their member in nato. and the biden administration rather than use the resolution to create a peaceful resolution fostered that war. nothing excuses putin's invasion but the question is what are we going to do about it. we are going to keep cutting checks. for the american people, they say what they mean is to get the

russians out of ukraine. why not state that that's the objective and state it's to get the russians out of ukraine including crima or not. the state department have said variations on that and secretary newland said that the actual mission is that we get war crimes tribunals for putin and regime change. and senator lindsey graham a republican said the mission is actually about rare earth minerals that ukraine has. if it's about minerals does it go back to november of 2013 was said going to do a trade deal with russia instead of the european union. there was a coupe and actual snarks that resulted in new government in ukraine. none of this excuses what putin has done.

we should be rightly rejecting what putin has done in ukraine and the union has spent more than 170 billion on the war. but we still haven't defined the mission but you can't hold it for success or in this sense or potentially for failure. if we keep cutting checks, ukraine doesn't have the resources, manpower or skill to deploy the weapons it will take to extract the weapons from ukraine. we want them to be able to do that but we have taken off the table a peaceful resolution. in the spring of 2022, the biden administration scuttled peace negotiations because they had a mission they were trying to achieve in mind. i sent questions to them and i got a response and i wante what. they came up with something finally that says, united states' goal is an independent

democratic economically stable government and for institutions. . . . the point of this bill is tell us exactly what you want to do. it's not something you can have to hold accountable. i asked the chairman of the count jeeves milly in the house foreign affairs committee and said general, does this qualify as a mission statement in the military? he said absolutely not. you would want more prescription on that. all i'm asking is the same thing our military already knows how to do, define the mission. do it in a classified setting, by all means. but do it in a way to hold you accountable for the results and that is the point of amendment number 38 and encourage my colleagues to support it and thank the committee and support. i yield. >> i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: there's so much wrong the gentleman said on that amendment. first, what chairman mille had to say, we are not fighting in ukraine and the speaks receivity is a -- specificity is a entirely different place. the biden administration has articulated two points, number one, preserve a sovereign democratic ukraine. number two, don't get into a war with russia. they have said that from day one over and over again. i have heard people who don't want to@8■9 support ukraine continually generate this excuse, oh, it's not clear, we don't know what we're doing there. we've known what we're doing there from day one. we're trying to stop russia from destroying ukraine. could not possibly be more clear. that's what we're trying to do.

and the resources we have provided to ukraine have helped make that possible. ukraine still exists as a sovereign democratic country. also, there was all throughout that speech all kinds of russian propaganda that is untrue. the united states nor any nato allies, we did not block this mythical peace deal that existed in april of 2022. putin didn't agree to a peace deal and neither did zelenskyy. our strategy in ukraine is crystal clear, stop russia from destroying it. ok. now, in an ideal completely outf all of ukraine as it existed post-1991. that's not the stated goal or stated strategy. the stated goal and stated strategy is to preserve a sovereign democratic ukraine. i hope everyone on this floor recognizes, number one, it's a really important goal. it's worth fighting for to make sure russia can't simply destroy

a sovereign democratic nation. because if they destroy one, they'll be sorely tempted to destroy more and ukraine is worth preserving. and number two, for the two-plus years we've been engaged in this, we've been pushing that sttegy effectively against all odds. we seem to have forgotten now in the immediate days after the russian invasion, the assumption of everyone was ukraine was finished, they were gone, they were done. there was no way they could stand up for russia. and yet for two-plus years they have and they are capable of continuing to do that if we don't back off on our support for them. now, the amendment that is in the en bloc, i'm not thrilled about and asks for a strategy and in my opinion the strategy already exists and has been met. the administration will send up their strategy in the next couple months which will meet the requirements and concerns of this amendment and will stop us from cutting off our support for ukraine. but please don't believe every

piece of anti-american, anti-ukraine, pro-russian propaganda that gets put out there but what's going on. it's really rather simple. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: putin wants ukraine and said it should not exist and be a part of russia. we're helping ukraine stop him from doing that. at the end of the day, that's what's happening. it's not complicated and we ought to support that effort. with that, i yield o illinois, r the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one machine. one minute. mr. casten: i rise in support of my amendment to examine barriers to access for military pilots seeking mental health care. today military and civilian aviators, when they report they've sought mental health care, they're faced with confusion and a long process in returning to work. what that means is minor mental

health concerns can derail careers for safe airline or traffic controllers that want to get better and created silence and stopped them from seeking care and made our skies less safe. in may the air force took a good first step forward by allowing these pilots and air traffic patrollers to receive an extra 60 days of treatment without losing their wings. my bipartisan amendment builds on that to help destigmatize health care and ensure those who seek care face no consequence or robust standards for being recleared for duty than they would if seeking physical health care. i urge my colleagues toi accessl health care for pilots, protecting the health and readiness of our armed forces and keeping our skies safe. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend and colleague, mr. self.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. self: today i rise in support of my amendment which would expeditionary first class vessel after general kerry, u.s. marine corps. during general kerry's 38 year military career he served during world war ii, korea and world war i and rose from enlisted man to lieutenant by the age of 20. kerry participated in landing his platoon to seoul.and leading at the infamous reservoir, kerry and his marines were outnumbered 8-1 but held their ground and broke through thept chinese tra. while in korea, kerry was badly wounded. over his decorative career he became a pilot, threw 204 combat sorties and received 41 medals and earned the flying cross. he received promotion to

lieutenant general and was awarded the defense superior service medal. i urge my colleagues to support this enclock package to honor general kerry and his service to america and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i forgot one thing about the ukraine amendment. the gentleman referenced a number of different people including senator lindsey graham and what he thought the strategy was. i want to make sure people understand, that's the thing about a democracy. yeah, you know what russia's strategy is because vladimir putin doesn't let anyone else have an opinion. in the united states of america we have 535 members of congress and if you ask every one of them, i don't doubtc you'd get a wide variety of answers of what we're doing in ukraine. that's living in a democracy and people are free to have their opinions. if you ask the administration what our policy is, it's been consistent and clear,on't stumba

war with russia. it's not an easy policy to implement but they've successfully done it two-plus years now. that's clear. don't be confused by other indet contractors who have an opinion what the strategy ought to be but is different than what it is. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. tlaib. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. for my good colleagues. my colleagues are about to ram through another record-breaking military budget, nearly $1 trillion, packed with bullets and bombs and giveaways to defense contractors. they also had time to sprinkle in some anti-women policies. 2023 mks the sixth year in a row that the pentagon has failed its audit. my colleagues continue to prove record-breaking military budgets but the pentagon cannot pass an audit. it's absurd. the navy's l.c.s. ships with the

lifetime cost of $100 billion, mr. speaker, are literally broken down and rusting at the harbor. meanwhile, my residents are worried, worried there is lead in their water and that they're drinking toxic chemicals and all issues my colleagues say there isn't enough funding to solve. on top of that, it's incredibly disturbing that many of my colleagues in this chamber are actively profiting financially directly, personally when they vote to pass more funding for weapons and war because they personally own stock in war manufacturing. so enough is enough. i'm proud to pose this wasteful -- oppose this wasteful bill and wish my colleagues do the same. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to recognize mr. fong of california for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fong: i rise in support of

the amendment for the fiscal 2025 defense authorization act. from navy missile systems to air force aircraft, the might of the american war fighter can betrayed to the testing and development that occurs in my congressional district. the last thing that the remarkable individuals at naval air stations and the edwards air force base need to worry is whether the hospital doors supporting these communities remainpe in indian wells valley and a hospital supporting the ridge crest community is suffering financially and at edwards base, it is unclear whether they have a supporting health care system in place. this amendment would require the secretary o defense to explore the issues in the r-28 airspace in the western united states and report back to congress to ensure we have the information needed best support this critical endeavor. mr. speaker, we need to ensure we have a stable health care system so that the work force at

these legendary installations remain open to the creativity and innovative spirit that's kept america safe for generations. i'd like to thank mr. obernolte for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentlelady from california, four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. porter: our service members deserve the best medical care and sometimes they get world class care but sometimes the doctors make grave the civiliann file malpractice claim and have a jury hear their claims. but military doctors are immune from that scrutiny. instead, several years ago, congress and the d.o.d. developed a process for evaluating service member malpractice claims, but that process is clearly broken. all o

have been victims of military medical malpractice and we need to hold d.o.d. and its doctors accountable. that's why i co-sponsor congressman isis's hero act and we need a independent objective analysis on how military medicine is failing our service members. my bipartisan amendment would address service member traumatic brain injury stemming from blast training. brain injuries among service members are on the rise. just last month there were reports that artillery soldiers are als suffering these career-altering injuries. whether injuries are a result of training or combat, our service members and their families■9 ned the best health care we can offer. that's what this amendment does by requing the d.o.d. to explore new technologies for the treatment and prevention of brain injuries. last year, this amendment passed the house with bipartisan

support. we must do it again because it was not included in the final legislation with the senate. i urge my house colleagues to pass it again and my senelleagus important amendment. too often our service members rely on decades old equipment that can't be updated at a fair price. open systems interfaces solve that problem. these systems are already in our daily lives, in our phones, and in our by some defense programs because open systems promise faster and cheaper upgrades. that's because they allow the government to embrace competition for new parts and software that make equipment more effective. for small and innovative companies to offerhe the pentagy need to know what standards the government is using. this amendment will give businesses access to the information they need to compete. my amendment would grow small businesses and give our service

members the tools they need to win. i rise to support our military families. military child developnt centers are a lifeline for our service members who move frequently and often work long hours past when childcare centers are open. serving more than 20,000 children, the military's offered childcare on their bases for decades. military families strugglefind . it's left 9,000 children waiting months for a spot at a military childcare center. childcare is a quality of life concern for active duty service members, including those in my district at naval weapons station seal beach. my amendment would provide a strategy to construct and ad quit number of child development centers to support our military families as they tirelessly serve our country. ..

there rogers: i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc. mr. smith: i encourage to vote for the en bloc. the chair: the question is on the en bloc offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. thzae opposed, no. the ayes have it and the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i offer amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of amendments 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189,

191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,■r 220, 21, 222, 223, 24. 225, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 printed inrt 118-551 offere.

rogers of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1287, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 20% minutes. mr. rogers: i encourage my colleagues to support the en the chair: the gentlemanfromck. washington is recognized. mr.smith: i urge members to adopt the en bloc package. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington. mr.smith: i ask that the request for recorded vote on number 47 be withdrawn to the end at the amendments dispossessed of by earlier votes thereon.

the chair: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committeeavor, say aye. thoe opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee do now rise. committee of the whole house having had under consideration 8070 has directed me to report there is no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 8070 and come to■n no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares in recess subject to the call of the chair.