syria. for our even national security we must continue our work countering terrorism in syria. the syrian democratic forces continue to hold about 10,000 islamic state tighters in detention facilities in syria, that are seen as key to its resurgence. we must counter the serious threat and protect americans by continuing our support in syria. we must continue to support the people of syria that have been battered by war displacement and natural disasters. by helping to ensure that the syrian people have food assistance, access to health care, education, and water and other support, we prevent them turning to the very extremist groups that are promising that security. .

foy. conflict zones are not clear cut, and the government of assad is still the governing authority there. while we take every precaution to ensure that no assistance, mind you, no assistance benefits this brutal regime, lines are continually shifting, and we need to make allowances for activities that could touch the government on controlled areas. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has the only time remaining. ms. lee: i urge a no vote, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 12,

further proceedings will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> while commending the chair for a job well done today, i now move that the committee to rise. the chair: question on the motion that the committee rise. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the committee of the whole house from the state of the union having under consider h.r. 8771

directs me to report that it's come to no resolution thereon. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration h.r. 8771 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend and include extraneous material on h.r. 8774 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the chair: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman suspend. pursuant to house resolution 1316 and rule 18, the chair declares the house and committee of the whole house of the state of the union for the consideration of 8774, the chair appoints the gentleman from north dakota to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: on the consideration of h.r. 8774, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2025, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentleman from minnesota each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise today to h.r. 8774, the department of defense appropriations act. i want to start by thanking chairman cole for his leadership

in this process. i also want to thank the ranking member for her friendship and partnership through this. i want to thank the subcommittee staff for their tireless work on this year's bill. h.r. 8774 provides $833 billion for the department of defense and the intelligence community. consistent with a fiscal responsibility act, this is 1%, or $8.5 billion, above fiscal year 2024 enacted levels. while $833 billion is a discretionary cap, the subcommittee has little discretion over 62% of this bill. the funding goes toward must pay bills, including troop and civilian pay. military benefits, medical care and family services. sustainment of current weapons systems, fuel, utilities, i.t., basic supplies, and training and education. this is to say nothing of necessary investments in major weapons systems to keep our military dominant in an intensifying threat environment. these factors are why i believe

the current defense top line is too low for today's needs. present and emerging threats mandate a robust u.s. military, which is as former secretary of defense james mattis said, requires at least a 3% to 5% real growth above inflation. due to the decision to consolidate our defense industry over 30 years ago, a marriage that the industrial base is brittle and unable to mobilize without significant investment. while defense allocation under the f.r.a. is too low to meet america's national security needs, it is the law of the land. this bill is written to be consistent with this law. today's threats mandate a resolute united states, made credible with capability lethal and a ready military. the defense appropriations subcommittee scrutinized the fiscal year 2025 budget request line by line and conducted rigorous oversight. this resulted in $18 billion in

cuts of requests that were necessary or unjustified. this bill provides no blank checks. instead this bill builds on the priorities from fiscal year 2024. these priorities include prioritizing the fight against china, promoting innovation and modernization, supporting our service members and their families, optimizing the pentagon civilian workforce, increasing the department's role in countering the flow of fentanyl and synthetic opioids, supporting america's close ally, israel, and ensuring the department focuses on its core mission of training and equipping our war fighters and not culture wars. time is not on our side. president xi is planning to invade taiwan potentially by 2027, if not sooner. the only way to prevent chinese aggression is by fielding and operating capability that demonstrate america's military

advantage. to this end, the bill increases investments in fifth and sixth generation aircraft, procuring deliverable capability, including several unfunded priorities. it prohibits the divest of certain naval and air assets that are still combat credible. and it provides $200 million for taiwan security cooperation programs while prioritizing defense articles and services to the threatened much the bill also continues investments in the reawakening and acceleration of american defense innovation. our industrial base, our defense industrial base, is fragile, and competition is stifled. almost every major defense acquisition program is plagued by persistent inflation and aging workforce, costly infrastructure, weak supply chain, overly optimistic schedules, unrealistic budget, and ultimately overpromised results. we can trace this back to the

secretary of defense defense contractor version of the last supper. back in 1993, when the defense industrial base consolidated from two dozen defense prime contractors to the five that we have today. the consequences of this decision mandate action which achieved, let me restate that. the consequences of the decision mandate action, which must be achieved through an innovation intervention. america's legacy of innovation and entrepreneurs give us an advantage over our competitors that they could never replicate. this bill seeks to tap in to that opportunity with over $1.3 billion for the department of defense innovation unit and related efforts, including $400 million for the highly successful program. modern and innovative practices are needed, and more than just our defense capability. the pentagon workforce and

business practices also need to enter into the 21st century. this bill cuts 916 million in unjustified workforce requests and finds more efficient ways to do business. recognizing the national security threat posed by china's supply of fentanyl-based chemicals to mexican drug cartels, this bill maintains high levels of funding for d.o.d.'s drug interdiction and counter drug activities with $1.1 billion. this includes an increase for today's national guard counter drug program and the national guard youth challenge program, empowering states to take a more active role in the defense of their communities from a number of our -- from our number one foreign adversary. this bill also transforms mexico from northcom to sotcom for improved coordination and prioritization. as i mentioned at the outset, this bill focuses the department on its war fighting mission.

the bill includes multiple provision from the house fiscal year 2024 bill that pivot the pentagon away from partisan policies and toward military readiness. finally, underpinning all of these priorities, funding in the bill is the imperative to support our service members and their families. the bill includes a 4.5% pay raise for all military personnel, plus $2.5 billion toward an additional 15% pay raise for junior enlisted service members. this will have a positive effect on recruitment and retention and will improve the quality of life for our service members and their families serving with them. i'm proud of the year's defense appropriation bill, which adheres to the fiscal year constraints while providing a strong military to defend america, our allies, and our partners. this bill procures where we can, trains where we must, and invests in capability that will make other adversaries wake up every day and say today is not

the day to provoke the united states of america. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 8774. ms. mccollum: i want to start by recognizing the outstanding work of the staff. jennifer, jason here with me, ben, patrick, but i also want to acknowledge the great work of the majority staff. thank you for your hard work, and a big shout out to johnny. i want to thank chairman calvert as well for his leadership on the subcommittee and for his warm friendship. i want to recognize three

members in this bill particularly, because this will be their last defense bill. first and foremost, chairwoman kay groninger, the very first woman to lead this subcommittee. and on my side of the aisle, derek kilmer, to them, we will miss them greatly. i want to thank each and every one of them for their years of work on our subcommittee and for their commitment to america's national security. turning to the bill. fiscal year 2025 defense appropriation act totaled $833 billion, slightly over president biden's budget request. i appreciate that the bill conforms to the fiscal responsibility act. however, i do have deep concerns with this bill on how it will impact our military's readiness and unit cohesion. to honor the sacrifice of those who have fought for freedom, we need to foster a climate in our military that ertz and supports all americans who choose to take

the oath to serve. unfortunately at this time, this bill does not reflect that sentiment. in 1948 in a speech to the british house of commons, winston churchill said, and i quote, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat. the bill before us repeats the same mistakes as fy24 house proposal. once again, this bill includes partisan social riders that led to continuing resolutions spending over five months in the fiscal year. all these riders were just rejected in the fy24 conference committee agreement we passed in march. we all understand we're in a new geopolitical era where our nation faces grave threats and must respond swiftly. but once again, the majority has included riders that they know will not become law. this will only serve to repeat the process that nearly ended in a full year continuation resolution. .

there there are provisions in this bill that are outside the jurisdiction subcommittee. that include pros hinting funds for the -- that includes prohibiting funding for the united nations relief and work agency and the an organization the department of defense has never, ever funded. or a provision related to the i.r.s. tax treatment of individuals who hold a belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman only. these provisions and some of the amendments yet to be considered are just not germane to this bill. and this subcommittee, i believe, must stop wasting valuable time on issues outside of our jurisdiction. because our national security cannot afford to waste another five months as we did last year. these provisions again only create division in the congress, which will impact our armed forces. i'll address a few of them. but this bill, once again, prohibits the department of defense's policy to ensure that service members and their families have access to leave

and travel allowances for basic reproductive health care. i'm extremely dispointed that the rules committee failed to make my amendment in order which has struck down this outrageous provision from this bill. we know the department's policy is legal under federal law. the justice department has concluded that fact. in fact, they stated, and i quote, from the department of justice, the department of defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for service members and for their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that the d.o.d. cannot itself perform due to statutory requirements. the statutory requirement they're talking about is the hyde amendment, mr. chair. to be clear, i do not support the hyde amendment. but like last year, i think it's important to address it and for america to understand what the provision in this bill does to the legal services that would be provided under the hyde amendment. hyde prohibits the d.o.d. from

using funds or facilities to perform abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. 18 states have enacted total or six-week abortion bans. some of these states do not eastbound have an exception -- even have an exception for rape or incest. so this bill interprets the hyde amendment in a way that it was never intended. if your duty assign station is one of these 18 states, you have no access to the hyde amendment exceptions. you must travel for your health care and you're entitled to do that. those living in the 18 states comprise of 80,000 service women and 170,000 spouses. it's a total of 250,000 women in military communities without access to reproductive health care. this language is a de facto national abortion ban for women

who serve alongside and in the military. women will exit the force because of this, husbands and fathers will not want to serve in states where their families could be negatively impacted. i only wish the majority would have had the courage to bring my amendment to the floor. our service members and their families deserve that debate. once again there are provisions in this bill that disenfranchise lesbian, guy, bisexual and transgender service members. rather than making our military a welcoming and inclusive place for all those who wish to serve this country, there are approximately 79,000 lgbtq+ americans that serve in our armed forces and yet again these provisions included in this bill needlessly attack the inclusion efforts and the diversity efforts by the department. our military is the only institution in our country that most broadly reflects the entire

american population and that includes over 1/3 of active duty service members who identify with a minority group. we know that at times we're facing recruitment challenges in the service, but we did hear from the army and the anyway stli year that they're seeing proivment --ny i have this year that they're seeing improvements in recruiting numbers. that's great news. why would we want to dissuade any american from taking the oath of service? beyond the contentious social policies, there's other elements of this bill i cannot support. first, the bill continues to treat climate change as if it's not happening. and it's not a national security threat. we know for a fact that it is. we've seen the impacts of severe weather events on installations year after year. just look at guam as a recent example. over $50 billion, $50 billion in repairs will be needed on the installation on guam which were damaged by a typhoon last year. with all the military

construction funding going to guam, the infrastructure vulnerability on this island is very clear and we must address it. and then there's alaska. alaska continues to experience melting perma frost which damages runways and radar stations all across the state. we are spending sustainment and research dollars to protect these installations in the best way we can. by cutting climate programs, we harm resiliency and, folks, we're going to pay for it in the back end. second, the bill cuts the security funding for the ukraine assistance initiative. i recently met with president zelenskyy and he expressed how grateful the ukrainian people were that the united states had finally delivered additional ammunition to help ukraine repel putin's invasion. we know this bill should include long-term assistance that ukraine needs. this funding has been this the base bill since 2015.

the funding we put in the base bill signals that the west stands with them in their fight for their own self-determination. and its assistance that will continue to enhance ukraine's military ability to work with nato forces. but failure to continue funding that has long been standing bipartisan support for ukraine, it sends a terrible signal. and it will only embolden putin. third, the bill again limits the ability of our government to address disinformation. our foreign adversaries use social imleed to spread dis-- media to spread disinformation here at home in the united states. just look at what russia did leading up to the invasion in ukraine. russia used social media to spread harmful lies about a nonexistent ukrainian american chemical biological weapons program. none of it was true, none of it existed. what was true is that russia had an active chemical weapons

program of their own. they were in violation of the international obligations under the chemical weapons conventions. but this bill deprives the department of their responsibility to set the facts straight. it would let bad actors like russia continue to spread disinformation unchallenged and that's down right dangerous. mr. chair, regrettably at this time i will be unable to vote for passage of this bill and i cannot recommend it to my colleagues that they support it. and, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman from texas, a member of the defense subcommittee, mr. ellzey, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellzey: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. today i rise in strong support for this bill as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. and i'd like to commend chairman calvert and hads i team behind us for an outstanding legislation that makes smart investments in our national

defense. this bill invests in technology, innovation and people with an eye on tomorrow while sustaining today's important platforms such as the f-35 strike fighter. if we are to prioritize social issues over lethality, our enemies will take note. our colleagues across the aisle seem to prioritize shaking a fist at mother nature over standing strong against our enemies. make no mistake, this bill comes at a time of global conflict and today seems a lot more like june, 1938, than june, 2024. in the middle east, iran is sponsoring houthis to shut down commerce inhe red sea which directly effects prices here at home. they're sponsoring, training, funding and directing hamas and hezbollah in conflict with our good friends in israel. on the european continent, for the first time since the end of world war ii and the formation of both nato and the u.n., russia's full scale invasion of

ukraine foreshadows more imperial expansion and the desire to reconstitute the soviet union. on the korean peninsula, we are technically still at war. finally, china is waging cyberwarfare and chemical warfare here in our own homes. in our own border. through the proliferation of fentanyl, all of the compounds of which come from china, they are killing our future cops, teachers, service members and welders at numbers not seen since world war ii. to the tune of 300 americans every day. they aspire to control the entire south china sea, the maritime highway for 1/3 of the world's commerce. if they shut that down, imagine what happens to prices here at home and indeed world trade. and with a jealous eye on taiwan, they are watching our every move to understand how the u.s. responds or, more importantly, doesn't respond to unprovoked attacks on our allies. this bill counters those threats

in a sensible way and that's why i'm proud to support it. it contains investment that i supported -- the spe the chair: the gentleman is yielded for this 30 seconds. mr. ellzey: thank you. it contains important investments i supported in satellite technology, advanced manufacturing, autonomous air and surface vehicles, tankers and fighter aircraft, cutting edge software and advanced projectiles. i'm proud of the work of the appropriations committee and through this bill we'll maintain our edge and we will win if necessary. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. at this time i yield six minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, ms. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognize. ms. delauro: mr. chair, i rise

in opposition to the republican majority's defense appropriations bill. first, i would also like to thank the majority and minority staff, particularly jennifer and jason for their efforts, and my thanks, deep thanks to chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum for their work on this bill. unfortunately i cannot support this bill at this time. with this bill congress has the unique and the solemn responsibility of appropriating the funds necessary to defend and to protect our nation. i come from a defense-dependent state. i understand the importance of making investments and the kinds of investments we make in this bill. but this bill still does not advance our national defense capabilities. there is a path laid out for us to responsibly strengthen america's national security and

support our armed service members. but instead, under the majority's partisan process, we are considering a bill that promotes chaos in congress over prioritizing our national security and which sows division instead of supporting our service members' morale and unity. this bill undermines democracy, here and around the world. and it disarms our military in the face of the climate crisis. especially in an election year, we should not consider legislation that would neutralize the democratics of -- the department of defense's ability to counter disinformation campaigns, when we know foreign actors and our adversaries are seeking to meddle in our elections and our democratic processes. and why? after this congress has repeatedly demonstrated broad bipartisan support for ukraine in its fight against russian tyranny, why are we considering a bill that fails to fund the

ukraine security assistance initiative? rewarding russia. in addition to fighting russian aggression, usaid helps ukraine integrate with nato and western forces, directly supporting our broader national security and defense objectives. and recklessly this bill ignores our military leaders, even under president trump our military acknowledged and warned about the dangers of climate change, what it poses to our national security, our military assets and our service members around the world. secretary matusz said in testimony to the senate armed services committee, and i quote, climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. it is appropriate for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in the areas into their planning, end

quote. we ought to be ensuring our military's readiness and adaptability in the face of changing climate and worsening disasters, not denying the scientific and strategic reality of the threats that we face. finally, this bill contains a laundry list of partisan proposals that divide americans, divide the congress, including provisions that hurt women and lgbtq+ service members, obstruct diversity efforts. it furthers republicans' goal of making abortion illegal nationally by making it harder for women in our military to obtain reproductive care. no woman deserves to have her health care and family planning decisions made by politicians, but especially those who have put their lives on the line to protect america's rights and freedoms. every service member who wears our nation's flag is a critical piece of our national defense. american service members come from all over the country and the world, the sum of their

skills, their determination, their experiences and their perspectives is the greatest asset our military has. fostering an environment where every american who would fostering an environment for people to protect and serve this nation to feel that they are welcome and supported should not be controversial. these policy riders do not belong in appropriations bills. like last year, we will defeat them. but it is disappointing that we are going through this charade again, just months after republicans and democrats voted for the 2024 appropriations bills. and looking across all 12 appropriations bills, they were signed into law, democrats will accept nothing less than a 1% increase over 2024 in defense and nondefense funding. that is what the law provides for. i cannot support this bill. i urge my colleagues to focus on the end goal of funding our

government and preserving america's military strength rather than pushing messaging bills that have no future. please, protect our national security and our military readiness. it is time to govern. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. >> i'd like to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is otherwised. mr. calvert: i yield to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner. the chair: the the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. wagner: i want to thank the chairman very, very much for engaging me in this colloquy and for your work on this very important piece of legislation. last year's national defense authorization act, which passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, expressed serious concern that our nation's tactical fighter capacity is not

sufficient to meet combatant commander war fighting requirements. yet the air force is proposing the premature closure of one of the united states' two major fighter manufacturing lines, the f-15ex. it is a critical asset for the air force, and particularly for the national guard. the national guard's unfunded priorities list includes a request for additional ex production. if this line shuts down after fiscal year 2025 as proposed in the president's budget, the u.s. will be down to a single tactical aviation manufacturing line, and this is unacceptably risky. over 44 members of congress, republicans and democrats, supported the additional funding to keep the important f-15ex program going. i understand that top-line constraints this year present

tough challenges, mr. chairman, but this manufacturing line is in my home state of missouri, and it's a strategic asset and a national security imperative. may i have your commitment, sir, to work with me on the issue as the process continues? mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady. this committee recognizes the importance and the role the f-15ex. i thank the gentlewoman from missouri for raising this issue, and i look forward to working with you as we move forward with this bill. mrs. wagner: i have to thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this critically important issue and for his leadership on this legislation and in so many other important things that come before this body. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i would like to

yield five minutes to the gentleman from hawaii. mr. case: i rise in opposition to the measure as currently drafted. i do so with true regret. because hidden inside all the rhetoric and surplusage of this measure as drafted is, in fact, the foundation of a solid and responsible bill to fund our national defense as our chair and ranking member have both highlighted. this is very regrettable. sips our national defense funding measure has largely escaped these diversions and focused on national defense. but instead, we have before us today in reality a proposal that is crippled by avoidance of inconvenient realities, sacrifice of long-term goals to short-term expediencies, pandering to extreme viewpoints, and to my friend and colleague, the chair's comments and opening

statements, too narrow, i believe, a definition of war fighting and military readiness. especially telling in all of this is that in virtually all of these categories, our military disagrees with the cuts, with the initiatives. our military has a broader view. our military, i believe, does have the proper perspective on the amount of efforts that are required for true war fighting and military readiness. there are many, many examples we're going to hear about. we already have. we're debating them in amendments, but i want to highlight two that are perhaps small in the big picture, but that i think illustrate exactly what the issue is that we face with this particular measure. first of all, i would highlight environmental remediation. our military is obviously out there in our country and our world, and their activities have consequences to our environment. they are charged with avoiding those consequences and with remediating where there are

consequences. and yet this particular bill would slash the environmental remediation and restoration activities budget, which is a small part in the big picture of the defense department's budget by somewhere around 10%. this is of grave concern to all of us, because this is part of war fighting and military readiness. i would just cite a small example of this to make the point. in my home state of hawaii, a major center of our military activities on the island of maui, on the top of the largest mountain there is an effort by the u.s. space force to build seven small telescopes that are critical to the national defense, as anybody that knows this knows. in the vicinity is an air force facility at which there was a fuel spill, and that fuel spill is being reimmediate aid by the air force right now. it is critical. the air force is committed to remediating it. it needs the funding to do so. and whether the military through

the air force does, in fact, remediate fully, fairly and completely is a major issue to the community in whether they will support critically important space force telescopes. so there's obviously a direct line in terms of the efforts to remediate two national security interests, which i think we would all agree is truly in the range of military readiness. another small example of the readiness and environmental protection integration program, or repi, which includes the acquisition of real property interests from willing landowners to prevent development and encroachment around our military facilities, fulfills the military's own desire to protect native habitat, improve military installation resilience, climate change and extreme weather. this program is also the subject of the budget cutting knife under this program. the military wants repi.

they realize the benefit of repi to their military readiness, to their war fighting capability. these again are very, very small examples, but i hope that they illustrate the basic point that when we take a look at the larger defense budget, if we allow ourselves to get distracted, to exercise denial tendencies, that focus on the short term without contemplating the long term, by taking extreme viewpoints into these areas, and again, by constructing too narrow a definition of war fighting and military readiness, we're going to miss the mark on this defense budget, and i believe, and this draft, we unfortunately have. luckily we're early on in this process. i think there's plenty of room for us to debate and discuss these issues, and i very much hope that we correct these deficiencies and that we produce a bill, as i hope and believe we have in the past and will again, that i can support. thank you, and i yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the work being done on the underlying bill. i rise on behalf of my amendment, number 60, to h.r. 8774, the department of defense appropriations act for 2025. my amendment specifies that the united states navy shall use $19.44 million to procure hoe-foot patrol boats. the navy has a stated need for these new boats to replace the old 38-foot boats aging fleet n. today's environment, it's essential that we have the most advanced technology and capabilities. this is well understood. the 40-foot patrol boats are essential to the navy's mission, and the navy requires a shipyard by contract to be capable of

producing one boat every 45 days in order to sustain maximum efficiency. yet the navy does not fully fund the program through the present budget request year after year toen sure this objective is accomplished. my amendment does not increase the actual cost of the hoe-foot patrol boat program. instead, the amendment simply specifies within appropriations the funds needed for the efficiency of the navy and the shipyards working together to build these vessels. overall efficiency requires that the rate of funding match the rate of vessel production. and any pause in the delivery of funding leads to a loss of the existing workforce, the supply chain, vendors, the materials, etc. so coordinating funding with production is essential, and we should support this common-sense funding delivery adjustment,

which is essentially what many amendment calls for. it's critical that we ensure our own forces, have the vessels and technology required to secure america. i will always advocate for a strong maritime industry that supports thousands of american jobs. i thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment, mr. speaker, and i yield. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i'd like to reserve as well. the chair: the gentleman from california have addition comments? the gentleman from california is now recognized. mr. calvert: i yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. nunn, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from iowa will defer. the gentleman from california is recognized. the chair: i yield to the gentleman from california,

mr. garcía, for one minute. mr. garcía: i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee who's been a true leader. i rise in support of it. the minority will talk about environmentalism and social justice messaging, but the reality is that this bill goes beyond those. we must remember that the goal in the military is to deter a war, and if unable to deter a war, to been a war. today, the pacing threat is china. this bill does just that. it helps us not only accelerate programs, but keep pace with china and a bunch of constrained environments, of only $833 billion. we are trying to gain efficiency so it behaves like $1 trillion and it supports all the weapons systems from high to low, b-21 supporting and protecting classified programs, and in my opinion, the most important thing, a 20% pay raise for e1 through e4's. i strongly urge support of the defense appropriations bill, and

i applaud chairman calvert's leadership on this issue as we try to make the world a safer place, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i'd like to reserve as well. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the speaker. this bill is a good bill. it moves the country in the right direction. i encourage all our members to support the bill, and i believe that, with that, i am now happy to yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. nunn, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. nunn: i want to thank the speaker and the chair for their

work on h.r. 8774. mr. chairman, as a counterintelligence officer who operated against china, i have witnessed firsthand how the chinese communist party can threaten our national security, and therefore, this bill is critical to our nation's security. the department of defense appropriations act fund will fight against communist china by strengthening our military, deterring efforts, and investing in the next generation of technology, innovation and our workforce. i thank chairman calvert for including my amendment to increase research in the development of cutting-edge drone technology. wireless powered transfer to allow u.s.-made drones to provide endurance, long-range capability, and dual-use technology to help protect america both at home and abroad. this this includes our border security, countering drugs and proliferation, allowing for ex tens of terrain mapping in the case of natural disaster, even air to air refueling, and certainly extending coms networks in contested environments.

and most importantly, they are highly effective, low-cost capabilities with a high-yield impact when it comes to a kinetic conflict. so with that, mr. chairman, i appreciate your leadership, the work of your committee, and i would urge members on both sides of the aisle to continue to support our advance in drone technology domestically made, independent of china, for a safer, stronger america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: if i may inquire if the majority has any other speakers. mr. calvert: no additional speakers. ms. mccollum: then, mr. chair, i'd like to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. fiscal year 2024 appropriations process has been plagued by continuing resolutions and have wasted five months of this fiscal year. i know chairman cole and chairman calvert agree with me that we live in an increationingly dangerous world -- an increasingly dangerous world.

i look forward to working with chairman calvert to improve this bill. we now hoe this process -- how -- we know how this process endses. the riders will come out just like they did in 2024. we have a blueprint on how to write these bills and i'm ready to get appropriations process back on track and not waste time as we did last year. let's give our service members and their families a bipartisan defense bill they deserve and i urge my colleagues at this time to oppose this bill and, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 118-40 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be

considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 118-559. amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 1316, and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of that resolution. each further amendment printed in part a of the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of house resolution 1316 and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part a of

house report 118-559 not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc considered pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 1316 shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as described in section 4 of house resolution 1316, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designee may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chair, pursuant to house resolution 1316, i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk shall designate the he amendment en

bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 1 consisting of amendments numbered 3, 6, 14, 18, 28, 31, 34, 42, 43, 44, 59, 75, 76, 80, 88, 89, 93, 95, 98, 99, 102104, 117, 119, 124, 125, 131, 134, 141, 143, 144, 146, 149, 155, 160, 161, 162, 182, 184, 185, 186 and 189 printed in part a of house report 118-559 offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlewoman from

minnesota, ms. mccollum, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial, bipartisan messaging amendments supported by both sides. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i also support this amendment as it was -- amendment. as it was stated, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of the members on both sides. we have no objections and encourage the adoption of this amendment. but, mr. chair, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. aim amr. amo: i hail from rhode island, the sea state. we know about protecting our national security.

unmanned undersea vehicles or underwater drones have become an increasingly important tool in our national security arsenal. this technology plays a critical role in ukraine's counterattacks against russia's naval aggression and helps allies monitor activity throughout the indo-pacific. underwater drones allow our navy to conduct dangerous and covert missions without putting american lives directly at risk. as we look at our naval inventory texas clear the united states -- inventory, it is clear the united states needs more underwater drones. we need them quickly and we need them affordably. my amendment in this en bloc encourages the development offed atific manufacturing of underwater drones. and my other amendment that will be considered later encourages the development and enhancement of the pay load capabilities of underwater drones. our ocean state is doing an excellent job to train workers, develop technology and produce

many of our underwater drones. i am proud to lead these amendments that will support good paying jobs in rhode island and advance our national security. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i have no other speakers so i am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. mr. calvert: i urge adoption of the package and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chair, pursuant

to house resolution 1316, i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2 consisting of amendments numbered 2, 7, 10, 23, 26, 27, 30, 45, 48, 54, 60, 67, 77, 81, 82, 86, 90, 91, 100, 101, 110, 118, 120, 122, 132, 135, 142, 145, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 169, 180, 183, 187, 188 and 190 printed in part a of house report 118-5 at offered by mr. -- 118-559 offered about i mr. calvert of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and the gentlelady from minnesota will each control

10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial bipartisan messaging amendments supported by both sides. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i support this amendment, as the other one it contains a series of bipartisan amendments that are supported by members on both sides. so we have no objections and we encourage the adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, we have no speakers and i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady. i urge adoption of the packing an and i yield back the balance of my time. -- package and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chair, pursuant to house resolution 1316, i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of amendments numbered 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 35, 37, 41, 49, 51, 65, 69, 70, 74, 78, 83, 97, 106, 112, 114, 123, 137, 138, 148, 150, 152, 154, 166, 168, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179 and 193 printed in part a of house report 118-559 offered by mr. calvert of california.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccollum, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial bipartisan amendments supported by both sides. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: once again i support this amendment, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of members on both sides. we have no objection. i encourage adoption of the amendment and, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i have one speaker. i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee on agriculture, mr. thompson, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership with this bill. i rise today in support of this en bloc which includes an amendment that i was proud to introduce. amendment 168 will restore funding for the apex accelerator program to the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.

apex accelerators provide individualized no-cost assistance and training for businesses to identify and compete for defense and other government contracts. with 97 apex accelerators across all 50 states, this program serves as the access for existing and new businesses to strengthen the defense industrial base by accelerating innovation, fostering ingenuity, and bolstering diverse supply chains. the success of the apex accelerator program speaks for itself. in 2023 alone, apex accelerators counseled more than 6 it,000 -- 62,000 businesses who received more than $2 billion in contracts. our nation faces unprecedented national security challenges. we must continue to invest in our small businesses to spur innovation, strengthen a resilient supply chain and diversify our industrial base. thank you, mr. speaker, and i urge my colleagues to support

this en bloc and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. langworthy, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. langworthy: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to the gentleman from california for yielding. today i rise to support my amendment to provide the navy science and technology for nuclear re-entry systems with $5 million for the next generation control system. ensuring that its budget-neutras budget-neutral. when our adversaries are ramping up their nuclear capabilities, we have a growing threat that demand as response. the strategic community is clamoring for upgrades to our aging weapons delivery systems and the development of this next generation control system is vital. this technology will minimize delays and enable precise vehicle control at hypersonic speeds. we are in a new cold war with china and complacency is not an option. my amendment will ensure america

leads in innovation, maintaining our military's unparalleled superiority. i also support representative trahan's amendment number 173. our brave men and women in uniform currently face a dangerous technology gap in close quarters reconnaissance and intelligence during combat and rescue missions. the army special operations command is addressing this with tactical, throwable cameras, providing a real-time life-saving situational awareness. this small tool can make a huge impact, save count lt -- saving countless lives. the only hurdle is the funding required for the army's operational evaluation. we owe it to our troops to provide them with the best tools to succeed on the battlefield and this technology is crucial for their success. mr. speaker, these amendments are not just about technology or budget lines, they're about safeguarding our nation and ensuring that our troops have what they need to protect and serve. i urge my colleagues to support these amendments in en bloc today and for the security and

the future of our country. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. ... mr. calvert: i urge adoption of the package and yield back. the chair: those in favor say aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: pursuant to house resolution 1316 i offer an amendment onclock. the chair: the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendments 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, hoe, 46, 50, 52, 53, 55, 61, 62, 66, 66, 68, 73, 79, 87, 92, 94, 103,

105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 121, 136, 165, 170, 176, 181, 191, and 192 printed in part a of house report 118-559, offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlelady from minnesota, miss mccollum, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: these are noncontroversial amendments supported by both sides. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i support this amendment and it contains, once again, bipartisan amendments that members on both sides have agreed to. we have no objections. we encourage the adoption of this amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. calvert: i have no additional speakers. with that, i urge the adoption of the package and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: pursuant to 1316 i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: consisting of amendments 8, 15, 47, 63, 84, 85, 96, 113, 115, 116, 126, 127, 128, 130, 147, and 167 printed in part a of house report 118-559, offered by mr. calvert of california.

the chair: pursuant to 13136, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlewoman from minnesota, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: these are noncontroversial, bipartisan amendment support by both sides. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i support this amendment, and as all the others, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of members on both side of the aisle. we have no objections and we encourage the adoption of this amendment and with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert, i yield to the geleman from new york, mr. langworthy, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. langworthy: thank you to the gentleman from california for yielding. i rise today to support my amendment that seeks to bring attention to the development and procurement of advanced medical devices, specifically designed for the treatment and prevention of infections associated with

prosthetics. they're cutting-edge technology that involves directly anchoring a prosthetic limb to the bone, offered improved mobility and comfort for amp fews. our service members who have sacrificed so much for our nation deserve nothing less than the best care that we as a nation can provide them. this work, however, extends beyond our heroes in uniform. it has the potential to significantly impact the lives of thousands of americans who have lost limbs and are determined to regain their independence and continuing to live full and productive lives. the challenge of infunctions is a serious one. with potential complications it can hinder recovery and accomplish quality of life. but by prioritizing the availability of effective measures, we can ensure that all americans, whether they're veterans or civilians, receive the highest standard of care. this will not only reduce implications, but also promote faster recovery and better

outcomes overall i urge my colleagues to support the en bloc, which includes this, by doing so we stand with our service members, our veterans, and every american facing the trials of limb loss. we send a message to those families that their struggles are not forgotten and their journey to recovery and well-being is a priority for this congress. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the package and yield back. the chair: gentleman yields back. the question occurs on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. within within, theys have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 25 will not be offered.

it's now in order to consider amendment 29 printed in part a of house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mrs. greene: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the gentlewoman arise as a designee of the gentleman from georgia? mr. green: no. mrs. greene: no. 56.

the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in part a of house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? mr. greene: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in part a of house report 118-559, offered by mrs. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentlewoman from georgia, mrs. greene, and a member oppose ready control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from georgia.

mrs. greene: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment also the rule to slash secretary lloyd austin's salary to no more than $1. lloyd austin has failed in his role as secretary of defense and has jeopardized the national security of the united states. he botched the american withdrawal from afghanistan, which resulted in the deaths of 13 american soldiers, along with the abandonment of american civilians and military equipment. this remains today as a large stain on our nation and a wound in every veteran that served in afghanistan's heart. he is in large part responsible for handing over control of afghanistan to the islamic extremists, the taliban. during secretary austin's tenure, military recruitment has reached historic lows. instead of recruiting new soldiers, secretary austin has focused his efforts on purging the military through oppressive

vaccine mandates and so-called extremism standdowns. more than 8,000 troops were kicked out of the military for refusing the vaccine. thousands more sought religious and medical exemptions, many of which were still pending when the d.o.d. rescinded the mandate. for too long our soldiers have been punished because the current administration is hell-bent on forcing them to take a dangerous vaccine and submit to this practice. we also don't know how many of our military members have been harmed by these vaccine mandates, and we know they have been harmed. while the united states is being raff annalled by an invasion at our southern border, lloyd austin refers to continue to write blank checks for ukraine. lloyd austin's open-ended support of ukraine has depleted our defense capabilities and pushed the united states even closer to world war iii.

secretary austin has betrayed the american people and lost the public's trust. the american people should no longer have to reward his failures by paying his salary. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to lay claim to the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: thank you. the secretary of defense serves at the pleasure of the president of the united states of course he implements the president's policies. we have many ways of addressing our serious differences with the department and this administration. we've done so on multiple occasions, and we've done so within this bill. i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time, and i believe i yield to the gentlelady before i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank the chairman of the full committee,

and i'm very disappointed by these types of amendments that have been offered today to call secretary austin, who's dedicate his life in service of the united states, for over 41 years in the army, and he rose to the rank of four-star general. i could go on with his accomplishments, but this is a man whose a pretty for our country, certainly someone who's not betrayed the american people. i thank the chairman for the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. mr. greene: i would argue that the families of the 13 american soldiers who were killed in the failure, the withdrawal in afghanistan, do not agree with her statement. my colleague across the aisle. this nation is too important. our national security is too important. our military members are too important to be under the direction and the leadership of lloyd austin, who failed our

entire military, failed our country in afghanistan. also, our country deserves defense. our country and our states are left defenseless when the d.o.d.'s main focus is securing borders in foreign countries, specifically ukraine. it moves me to anger when i heard lloyd austin directly tell me that our kiffins, our uncles and our sons could be sent to fight on the ground in ukraine one day. and i think that's appalling. when 300 americans are being killed by fentanyl every single day, when americans, young women are being raped and murdered by illegal aliens, and this is becoming something so specific in the news, that it's shocking and appalling, this is absolutely not what the d.o.d. is supposed to be for. the d.o.d. should be defending

americans, defending our national security. i think lloyd austin and i think many americans would agree that the secretary of defense, lloyd austin, his salary should be reduced to $1. that is the exact job performance that he's given to america and our national security. also, it is absolutely embarrassing that young people today do not want to serve in our military p. having the lowest recruitment numbers in probably history is appalling. it's embarrassing. and i urge my colleagues, i urge this house to pass my amendment. i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield back. the chair: all time for debate having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed say 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 seek recognition? mrs. greene: i ask for recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings offered by the gentlewoman from georgia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 57 printed in part a of house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? mrs. greene jerks i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 57 printed in part a of house report 118-559, offered by mrs. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, mrs. greene and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from georgia. . ms. green: my amendment would ensure no additional funding is authorized for the war in ukraine. to date, congress has appropriated $172 billion

american hard-earned taxpayer dollars in emergency supplemental funding for ukraine. of this amount, about $116 billion, 67%, has been provided through the u.s. department of defense. while our southern border is invaded by murderers, rapists, and terrorists, the biden administration cares more about protecting the borders of ukraine than the country he swore to protect and that many people in this body swore to protect. now ukraine is using american weapons to bomb civilian beaches in russian territory. ukraine is recruiting an untold number ofheir own men in ukraine to fight in this war that they cannot win. and anyone that says ukraine can win is being completely dishonest. we know how they will respond, how russia will respond, because

th already are. just recently we saweports of russian warships off the coast of florida in the caribbean. how much longer will the united states provoke russia before we fall into world war 3? or have american boots on the ground in ukraine, which the american people do not support. as a matter of fact, over half of america thinks the u.s. is not only spending too much money to help ukraine, they disagree with the war. and in a recent cbs poll, 57% of americans do not support additional aid to ukraine. and even 1-4 democrats don't support itnyre. the way, we're at $34.5 trillion in debt. it's unreal that anyone in this body who votes to appropriate money can go home to their folks in their district and say oh, yeah, more of your money should be put in debt to go to fend some country most of you can't

find on a map. it's truly disturbing. truly disturbing to watch american taxpayers' dollars, their hard-earned money, go down the drain because this government, this body, and many people in washington think they have to go fight a war or pay for a war and send weapo to a war in country that does not touch our bde but yet we are completely ignoring the war on our own border, the war on our own people that is waged on us every single day by the cartels. i can't understand why we can't come together in this united states house of representatives to defend the american people and recognize who our true enemies are, people invading our country from over 160 countries around the world.

the cartels organize crime, international crime organizations, that are murdering americans every single day, trafficking children, trafficking women, trafficking drugs. that's the only thing that we should be talking about. and if we have a department of defense, that should be our focus. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota claims time in opposition. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you. i would like to put in the record a letter dated november 1, 2023, signed by some distinguished members of this body, roger whittaker, ranking member of the senate armed services committee, james e. rush, ranking member of state foreign relations committee, chairman mike rogers, armed

services committee, and chairman mccaul, chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. the gentlewoman is entitled to her own opinion -- the chair: this will be covered under general leave. ms. mccollum: the gentlewoman is entitled to her opinion. the reason i'm entering this in the record is there are members on her side of the aisle that strongly disagree with her original statement talking about how weapons are used. i'll read a couple of highlights. thank you for accepting the letter. it says, dear president biden, we welcome reports that your administration has finally provided some limited range army tactical missiles of shorter range, and although this transfer is a positive step on the job, the attack 'ems are only half done. we urge you to provide unitary warhead variant of the attack emswitches at a substantial longer range than the ones that

they're currently using. the ukrainian requint for deep strike ability remains urgent particularly to long-range targets throughout crimea. ukraine has requested the long range attack 'ems and have shown they know how to use them in a effective matter. in other words, they're asking in a letter that they sent that these attack 'ems be given to ukraine to the full inventory that they can use to do the strikes that ukraine thinks they need to do. i just wanted to point out, mr. chair, even on the other side of the aisle, the republican side of the aisle, there is a difference of opinion from what the gentlewoman stated. i want to point out the majority has already eliminated funding for ukraine in the security assistance initiative in this bill, something the chairman and i disagree on in the way that it's done.

so we have another attempt that will also prohibit any further support to ukraine as they fight in their country. it's morally wrong, in my opinion. putin is attempting to rewrite the map of europe, and he's doing it through force. he's doing it in violation of international law. he is deliberately killing civilians. he's attacking hospitals and daycare centers and targeting grocery stores. and on top of that, something i find very, very disturbing is the kidnapping of ukrainian children. well, putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale. &the united states and the democracies around the world must continue to strongly oppose him. if we do not, then he and other authoritarian leaders will do something like this again, either in ukraine or somewhere

else in the world. american is not -- america is not alone in the support to ukraine. our nato allies have contributed over $50 billion in military assistance. we're donating tanks, air defense systems, artillery, and infantry fighting vehicles. the list goes on. let us not abandon our e.u. and nato allies now. let us not abandon ukraine. i know there are those who have expressed concerns about how some of the munitions are being provided to ukraine, particularly the custer munitions and we have an amendment to consider that deal and how to specifically work on that. and i understand the difficult position that ukraine and president zelenskyy have been in with respect to shortage of ammunition because of our failure to get the funding to them on time. the ukrainian people, mr. chair, they did not ask for this war. they did not ask for their children to be kidnapped and did not ask for their economy to be

destroyed and face daunting odds against russian forces. they've taken up the mantle to defend themselves, their values, and democratic principles, and i believe they deserve our continued support. i urge my colleagues to full heartily oppose this amendment. and mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has 1 1/2 minutes. ms. greene: congress has a low rating. because we are a failure to the american people. we've put the american people trillions in debt because of the ridiculous decisions to make our military the world police and make our government the biggest charity in the world, just giving away all of this money, enslaving americans in debt. it's also a complete lie to say you support ukraine while you

support funding of the continual murdering in a war ukraine cannot win. the russian population is 144 million. ukraine's population is 38 million. and the fact is, ukraine is going to run out of men that are going to die on that battlefield while america beats their chest and talks about putin every single day and keeps sending money and keeps sending weapons and keeps causing these people to die. we should be pushing for peace in ukraine. and if we're going to defend america, we should be fighting together, all of us, for our own border and for our own american people that we swore an oath to defend. mr. speaker, i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, i want to be clear, the russians attacked ukraine. ukraine decided, enough, that

they were going to stand up for their rights, for their values, for their people. and we as democracies around the world have stood together with ukraine. it's the right thing to do. vote no on this amendment. mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for fate having expired. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia. 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. it's now in order to consider amendment number 58 printed in part a of house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? ms. hageman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 58 printed in part a of house report

118-559 offered by ms. hageman of wyoming. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. hageman, and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. ms. hageman: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in response to my amendment number 58 which prohibits classified telework and remote working for d.o.d. employees. covid-19 pandemic is over and house republicans in the 118th congress prioritized returning the federal work force to the office and cracking down on wasted federal office space. to this extent last year, i sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 2024d.o.d. appropriations bill blocking routine and regular telework and remote working ensuring d.o.d. personnel who defend the nation operate largely in a classified environment are in the office. i want to thank chairman calvert and the committee, a similar

language is in this year's bill. but since last year, new d.o.d. policy may thwart the return to office needs of the government while also raising serious national security concerns. on january 8, 2024, the d.o.d. office of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness updated the department's telework and remote work policies for the first time since 2012. under this new policy, d.o.d. personnel are qualified for telework and remote work when, quote, the duties of the position do not require morneau educational handling, discussion, or possession of classified material, end quote. in short, if you handle classified information, you still qualify to work from home. while this policy permits the handling of information just up to up to the collateral secret level, it requires the d.o.d. to provide the d.o.d. worker with a teleworking device which means

more resources and spending simply to accommodate telework desires in a job not compatible with that style of work. this is not the only development, as the space force has awarded contracts for the development of a digital environment to integrate classified and nonclassified work from a remote location as well. reporting on the development of this software already shows there's an interest in elevating this technology to top secret and special access program level. mr. chairman, the development of these technologies in d.o.d. policies for classified remote and telework are a new concerning trend. they risk delaying the return of the federal work force to the office, a personnel traditionally exempt from telework and remote work are now being brought into the system versus focusing on bringing everyone back. it also raises significant national security concerns. homes, coffee shops and other places people choose to remote work from are not as secure as a d.o.d. facility.

i encourage my colleagues to support ■thisamendment and reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman claims time in opposition. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i understand this amendment and understand the desire for us to return to precovid normal sense routines. i want to be clear, this is a total ban on telework. i work in the classified realm more than i ever thought i would when i became a member of congress with my duties that i have especially as ranking member and former chair of the defense committee. and i can assure you that our staff does not take classified work home and do telework from home. .. they don't. people don't do that. this is a total ban on telework. i believe that certain circumstances where telework may

be necessary. let me give you an example. in 2001, i had to close my office in washington because of an anthrax scare. that was before we had laptops and we were well organized. and my staff, they worked from home, and sometimes worked at home together. they were able to get things done for the people that i represent. and i want to thank my staff for working under those extraordinary circumstances. now we have the technology that will allow people to work from home when it makes sense to do that. telework, there is not a need to shut down the government for snow days anymore. if power is available, people work from home to keep the government going. additionally, the federal government, including the d.o.d., is in competition with the private sector for certain types of workers. many private sector jobs offer telework as an option. without being able to have this flexibility, we may find ourselves in a more difficult position to fill jobs and to

provide services to our constituents. telework doesn't make sense for every single employee all the time. but options should be available to the department to improve the quality of life for its workers when it makes sense. i would urge my colleagues to oppose this total ban on telework. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. hageman: i'd like to assume our federal employees charged with handling sensitive information will always act responsibly, we department control human nature and cannot control where the d.o.d. systems will be opened up in the public. further, the d.o.d. facilities themselves protect information from intrusion, such as physical bryns or cyberthreats of bad actors seeking access to our information. the security simply cannot be guaranteed in every household the d.o.d. workforce. i want to quote the director of a company developing this technology for the space force. in an art discussing the software in development, the director stated, quote, you

can't just pop your laptop up at starbucks. some of the things within that user agreement would be, you know, you're in a closed space, there's no windows, there's no one else home, your cell phone isn't with you, things of that nature, end quote. what is being described here is a skiff, something that d.o.d. personnel only have access to at work and not at home. outside the office, even equipped with new technologies, there's too much unpredictability for the handling of classified information and these policies should not be allowed to go forward. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i'll make another statement, and then i'll yield back my time. let's be really clear here. this is a total ban, a total ban on working from home. now, i've stated again, i work in the classified area. the chairman and i work with

people in the intelligence community, and i can guarantee you, even in our committee, when things are passed out to members, do we not collect them back, mr. chair? people are not taking classified work home to do tele homework? if they're taking anything out of this chamber, out of this building, out of any of the departments where it's secured and should not leave, they should be prosecuted to the full extent because they're breaking the law. we shouldn't support this amendment, and we should work really hard to make sure that when tell he cork is available, it makes sense -- telework is available, it makes sense, it delivers for our constituents and makes our government run for efficiently. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. miss hageman: i believe my colleague misunderstands the relate. this doesn't relate to people on your committee work.

this has to do with the policy that was proposed by the d.o.d. office on january 8, 2024, that would allow d.o.d. personnel to occasionally handle, discuss or processlassified material in an at home or away from work setting. the purpose of the amendment is to prohibit that. so the idea that this is a total ban on telework for members of staff, of congress, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. this is directly related to the d.o.d. office of undersecretary personnel and readiness policies that were updated earlier this year. so there's clearly a misunderstanding by my colleagues on the other side as to what the purpose of this amendment is. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. miss the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair understands that amendment number 71 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment 72 printed in house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. jayapal: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 72, printed in part a of house report 118-559. the chair: pursuant to 1316, the gentlewoman from washington, msr opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. jayapal: thank you, my chair. my bipartisan amendment would prevent funding from this bill to be used to require the defense department to create what is called an unfunded priorities list. this list that d.o.d. is

required to send to congress is simply a wish list of things that individual commanders and generals would like to fund. it hasn't gone through the level of prioritization and vetting that all of the other things that come in the budget do. in preparing the white house budget request, the commander in chief in consultation with top military brass determines what is necessary to defend the country based on a ballistic analysis of our national security needs. by definition, anything that is in an unfunded priorities list has already been determined to be extraneous by the president, the secretary of defense, and the joint chiefs of staff. this practice that wasn't even mandatory until the passage of the fiscal 17ndaa does not serve the national security interest of the united states or the interests of our taxpayers. these wish lists are packed with billions of dollars of excessive

line items. this year it totals more than $27.5 billion on top of the $850 billion requested by the white house and a 50% increase from last year. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan and common-sense amendment. i want to thank my republican colleagues, congressman mcclintock and congressman davidson, as well as congressman garamendi, who have joined me to rein in this wasteful spending that has no benefit to our national security. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman from california claims the time in opposition. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: unfunded priority lists with an important tool to provide congress with unfiltered information on what our military needs. this has been the law of the land since fiscal year 2017. unfunded priority lists give

military services and the combatant commanders a direct channel to congress, which allows congress to make more informed decisions. i urge a no vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: i yield a minute to my distinguished colleague from minnesota, the ranking member, betty mccollum. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentlewoman for the time. mr. chair, i rise in support of my colleague's amendment. we should all be supporting funding for national security. should any department or agency really get an opportunity to request additional funding that's outside of the president's request by any administration's request? either all agencies should have the authority to do it or none of them should. this should not be unique to the armed forces and the commanders if it's such a good idea. the service chiefs, they appear before the committee each year to discuss how their budget meet the needs included in the national defense strategy.

most of the commanders also testify annually before the committee. congress is able to assess with strain gent oversight what we believe the country needs for its national security. therefore, i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and if this really is such a fabulous idea that we have these unfunded opportunity lists, then we should do it for the e.p.a., we should do it for the national park service. i could think of a lot of things that the american public would like to know about if this is such a good idea that aren't able to be funded in current time. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: mr. chair, i understand that it's critical for congress to engage with the pentagon to accurately meet our country's national security needs. but we don't have to spend bill i don't understand of dollars on

wish lists and what ifs to accomplish that. and i would just say that the ranking member is absolutely right. if this is such a great idea for this agency, let's do it for all the agencies. if it is not a great idea, we shouldn't be doing it for the department of defense. let's be clear. if military leaders want more funding for their wish lists, there is nothing in this amendment that would prevent d.o.d. from supplying other priorities list to congress, but this process should be optional, just as it was eight years ago. on top of that, most combat commanders already testify before congress ahead of the appropriations process. so congress can understand their needs without these wish lists that undercut the president's budget request. by law, individual generals and commanders are required to go around the commander in chief and military leadership to congress to ask for superfluous line items that serve mainly to line the pockets of defense contractors.

this is corruption plain and simple. these lists get in the way of our military stated priorities. for example, the house passed ndaa authorized funding for some of the army's unfunded priorities while making substantial cuts to the requested amounts for the army's three largest accounts. this is despite army chief of staff general randy george specifically requesting that none of the army's unfunded priorities displace anything on the army's fiscal 2025 budget request. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this sensible, bipartisan amendment, and i yield back the balance of time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for debate having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington rise? ms. jayapal: i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 129 printed in part a of house report 118-559. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 129 printed in part a of house report 118-559 offered by mr. moore of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from alabama, mr. moore, and a member opposed will control five minutes. mr. moore: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. this would cut $4.19 million from the d.o.d. climate change research and reallocate for the army's unmanned ground vehicles.

i want to start off by thanking my friend and colleague from oklahoma for cosponsoring this important amendment. mr. chairman, we should not be focused on climate change research at the department of defense. instead we should be preparing for the next implicate to ensure that our military is lethal and ready for combat. according to the presidential budget item justification for this project submitted by the office of the secretary of defense, they claim that climate change will impact the full range of u.s. military operation environments. that is complete hog wash. do we really think china cares about climate change impacts their operations based on environment? absolutely not. to better protect american service members from enemy fire, we should upgrade unmanned systems that operate in enemy environments. they've already demonstrated their perform atv potential on the battlefield. they can perform a wide range of tasks, from reconnaissance to surveillance to logistics to explosive ordinance disposal. without putting human lives at risk. by increasing in this, we can significantly reduce the

casualties and injuries among our troops. ensuring that fewer families will have to face the heartache of loved ones being harmed in the line of duty. moreover, enhancing our capabilities will give us strategic edge over oured on verier ises. as tensions rise and threats become more and more sophisticated, having a fleet of vehicles will enable our forces to respond to any threat. these vehicles can operate environments that are too dangerous and inaccessible for humans providing critical support in for personnel could be compromised. this amendment aligns d.o.d. dollars to the the the gaps rather than funding climate change. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. . for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. case: i heard comments from my colleague what this amendment does. but when you look at the actual language of the amendment, what you discover is uncertainty all over the place. first of all, let's start with the stated goal of cutting climate research from the defensewide research and development budget. well, this doesn't specify that in the amendment itself. it talks about the defense wide research and development budget. i guess that means all research and development in any way, shape, or form may be linked in some way, shape, or form through evaluating the effects of the climate on defense research and development. that's number one. so we don't really know what this amendment is doing in that department. and similarly, we have no idea what the increase in the army's budget for unmanned ground vehicles is really all about. it's just a general increase.

so on a very basic level, the amendment just fails for lack of certainty and for direction to the defense department. but let's be clear about what this amendment is actually all about. and i take for granted the gentleman in fact wants to increase funding for unmanned ground vehicles. but at the expense of further climate related activities within the department of defense. we of course had this discussion in the appropriations committee. this is a long-standing discussion, and already this bill fails because it cuts $621 million out of the defense budget in climate change programs that were in the president's budget. this bill was screened, was scrubbed, was word searched for anything that said "climate change." and what was yielded was any program that said "climate change" in quotes. i suspect they found some more somewhere that just had the word

"climate" in them at this point and where this $4.9 million in fact comes from. and we've had the discussion on the merits. this is contrary to what our own military believes is necessary. and i quote again from the d.o.d.'s own climate risk analysis, the department of defense's climate risk analysis and focuses on the indo-pacific where we certainly have these issues. quote, in the indo-pacific, extreme level rise complicated the security environment and placed key d.o.d. infrastructure and surrounding communities at risk and challenge local capacity to respond. this is our military talking. this is why our military opposes the reduction in $621 million to start with, much less to conduct any research. and you need look no further than our activities in the department of defense in the indo-pacific, in korea, japan, guam where we're investing

billions and billions of dollars. should we not ask what the impact of climate change is in those installations and those activities? and by the way, shall we not just provide for resilience which is basically trying to determine what the actual hardening of those facilities and other activities is. let's just wipe out research altogether because that's the target here, of course, research. this is not the right approach from the perspective of a reasoned military overall. this is not the right approach from the perspective of certainty from what we are designating. this amendment should not be adopted. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i yield to my colleague from alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. strong: i rise in support of the army's continued investment in unmanned vehicle technology.

it's our priority to provide commanders on the ground with enhanced situational awareness and increased flexibility on the modern battlefield. this plus-up would fill capability gaps that would hinder our war fighter on the frontlines. i've been proud to support the divisions on this ndaa appropriations bill the past two cycles, not only because of the work done in huntsville, alabama, but because this is addressing a critical national security need. this is why i'm here to do what is best for national security. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. and mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> increasing funds for army u.g.v.'s is not just for necessity but for the future of our nation. mr. moore: let us act

deceasively for the tools they need to serve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: thank you, mr. chairman. i see how my colleagues are focused on the unmanned ground vehicle. i can close by making that observation. we can have this debate, a matter of priorities whether we invest in the unmanned ground vehicle program. but we should do it with certainty and we should do it with direction and not at the expense of -- the further expense of any research and development related to the impacts of climate on military readiness and war fighting capabilities. we should oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate having expired, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. 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 gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. case: mr. chair, i demand a

recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 133 will not be offered. it's now in order to consider amendment number 139 printed in part a of house report 118-559.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 139 printed in part a of house report 118-559 offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: section 1620h was established to blacklist chinese companies with ties to the liberation army as well as so-called military fusion contributors. the f.y.2023 went further to provide sanctions for those on the list. it certainly hurts a company's shareholder value, which is the point. it protects american investors from unwittingly supporting companies underwriting china's

military modernization and/or genocide. this amendment simply ensures for the coming fiscal year the biden administration cannot remove any c.c.p. company designated for the department of defense section 1260-h list. i understand there's similar language in the underlying bill but the language has a waiver so broad you could drive a chinese tank through it. i'm therefore offering it as a stand alone to continue to push for full funding prohibition. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i claim time in op position. in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: section 126o-h requires the secretary of defense to maintain a list of chinese military companies operating directly or indirectly in the united states and publicly report such a list. and this list is required to be

submitted annually until december 31, 2030. and we have oversight over that and we should exercise our oversight. the ndaa gave the secretary authority to make additions and deletions to the list in subsection b-3. the f.y.2025 bill is consistent with current law. it's been the law since f.y. 2021 when the ndaa required them to maintain the list. this amendment would remove the secretary's ability to modify the list as an expansion of current law. if the secretary were to modify the list, congress would know about it and congress could do its oversight and due diligence if they thought there was something out of order. so given the bill already includes this language and the amendment would remove the authority of the secretary to make the necessary judgments, i oppose this amendment.

because this amendment, and if the -- the gentleman can correct me if i'm wrong, would suppose the secretary would disregard the law flagrantly and not fulfill their obligation. and i believe the secretary wilkes whether it's a republican secretary of defense or democrat secretary of defense fulfill the law, do their work correctly, congress sees the report. and if congress thinks there's something amiss, we do our oversight. and with that, i oppose the amendment and i do reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: this amendment is necessitated by the fact at every opportunity our president has chosen to placate than oppose china. appeasement has been a failed strategy and continues to fail us today. last year joe biden unilaterally removed 27c.c.p. entities from the commerce's unverified list,

all to ensure that riamando could secure a meeting with the counterpart. and joe biden removed the police, using d.n.a. to collect weegar employees from the list. joe biden made this decision on a mere commitment from china they would cooperate with us on confronting drug trafficking. well, i can tell you that the drug overdoses in my state last night and your state last night and his state last night would conflict with this idea that china is cooperating with us, that they're doing anything to stem the flow of precursor chemicals for fentanyl in this country. so this amendment is quite necessary. and she's right, it amends the law. it removes the secretary's ability to do so, and it puts joe biden in a box. where hopefully he can't get lost. i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i'm in opposition and have the right to close, mr. [. the chair: the gentlewoman is correct. ms. mccollum: i reserve for now. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ogles: delisting these companies, these chinese military companies, cooperators and genocide and proponents of the p.l.a.'s military modernization must be an absolute nonstarter. we've got to put america first, whether that's our border, whether that's commerce, and most certainly our military. and we've got to take a stand and put biden in his place and not let him d list these companies for political or monetary gain. with that, mr. chairman, i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, the gentleman offering the amendment

is entitled to his opinions. but i do believe when we're talking about the president on the united states on the house floor, we're not to refer to mr? i see the parliamentarians are discussing this. i won't ask for any more time to have you answer the question because they would give you the advice on that. but there have been times, mr. chair, when i've been in your position when things were happening pretense before about conversations and it was my understanding but i'll move forward. the gentleman, as i said, he's entitled to his own opinion and

his opinion is that he does not trust the president of the united states. and he does not trust the secretary of defense. i do. i believe that they will carry forward and uphold the law. the gentleman did point out something about these precursor drugs that i think the gentleman and chair and i both agree with, and that is china needs to crack down on them more. that means we need to crack down on china. but as soon as we list one of these chemical combinations, they come up with another one. so i've been urging, along with other people in the white house, as to figure out how we write this in a way that we can make sure we capture all these chemicals that are used to murderlast thing i would say on, we just did the security bill and some of the technology provisions that would allowed us

to capture a lot of this at the border unfortunately were cut by the republicans' bill that they put forward. there's work to do, i agree. but i do trust the secretary of defense and i do trust the president of the united states to uphold the law of the land. with that, i yield back. the chair: all time for debate having expired. the question 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 and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 140 printed in part arve of house report 118-559. the clerk: amendment number 140, printed in part a of house report 118-559 offered by

mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1316, the gentleman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. ogles: mr. chairman. this is an important issue and talk about the impact that has direct impacts on taiwan and united states of america, our beloved country. rim pacific is the world's largest maritime warfare exercise involving the coordination of dozens of countries. the 2024 exercise will showcase the participation of nearly 30 countries, 40 surface ships, three submarines, 14 national land forces, over 150 aircraft and personnel, almost 25,000. it promotes a free, open indo-pacific that has priorities including nations big and small have the right to freedom of the seas and the right to pursue

economic growth consistent with international law and premises of fair competition. this exercise deepens operability and alliance with our allies and it pursues deterrence for the sake of peace. peoples republic of china have no business going anywhere near these exercises. this would defund of the john s. mcgain national defense authorization act of 2019. that subsection is a waiver that allowed the peoples republic of china to participate hoon side the united states navy in the exercises. no questions asked. how pecularity is that the chinese adversary can be eligible to participate in this naval exercise and all because of a waiver congress wrote several years ago.

i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? the gentlewoman claims time in opposition. ms. mccollum: the reason why i claim opposition to this amendment it's completely unnecessary. of course china does not participate in the rimpmp ac. it is a tool that we used to build alliances with our allies and opportunity to deter china's activities. why would the department of defense invite them in? they are not going to. this is another attempt to load up this bill with unnecessary provisions and delay us moving forward with conference negotiations with the senate. if you have a problem the way the authorizers wrote the bill, i suggest you go to the authorizing committee. this is the appropriations

committee. and i full well know that the department of defense is not going to be inviting co join us i rimpac. this is unnecessa. provisions like this is wasting time and money. and i think the gentleman, he is entitled to his opinion and says he doesn't trust the president of the united states or secretary of defense to make decisions that are not only lawful. i oppose the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. ogles: china is a country that steals hundreds of billions worth of u.s. intellectual property every year and commit espionage against the united states. and doing the bare minimum to prevent fentanyl and supporting ever state sponsor of terrorism on the state department's list,

cuba, syria, iran. even considering all of this, beijing is not excluded if from participating. democratic countries like taiwan, participation is essential. the secretary of defense must certify to the congressional defense committees that china has stopped all land reclamation activities in the south china sea and removed weapons from reclamation sites and taking actions towards stabilizing the region. if they do those things china could be invited to rimpac. it is important to send a message and they are a bad actor and time for them to behave that countries in their region like taiwan have the right to participate in the free market to be free and democratic and

not be under their thumb. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i reserve until the gentleman is done. mr. ogles: fiscal year 2021ndaa congress included a fourth precondition stopping the ongoing genegainsthe uighurs. we have seen president biden play indicate china more ways than one by delisting. again, mr. chairman, we are the leader of the free world. who else is going to hold china accountable. who else is going to send a message that enough is enough. they are a bad actor on the global stage and underminus at every turn and yes this is an amendment. yes, it may take a moment to work through it and it may require more time and this is

the people's house and we do the work and take the time and get it right. i urge adoption and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i appreciate the gentleman's opinion on this. this is appropriations bill. i would be happy to work with you and take care of the issues that you care about, but i, right now oppose it on this bill. mr. chair, i would like to just take a second before i close. we had a previous amendment that the gentlewoman from georgia had in which she made statements about secretary of defense austin. i follow the advice of a very wise president of the united states. i kind of trusted my memory, but i decided to verify. for the record, secretary austin did not make any statement any

way, any way, shape or form that u.s. men and women would be fighting in ukraine. and he did say and i did hear him say that if we don't stop the russian aggression in ukraine, it will spread into nato and could result in the united states and nato sons and daughters fighting. could, and that's if russia spread beyond ukraine. with that, i will yield back. and really, i want my colleagues to know how strongly i oppose this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question occurs 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move that the committee now

do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee ri rises.mr. cha irman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 8774 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 8774 and come to no resolution there thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in

and facebook.com/c-span. good thursday morning. you can start calling in now. headlines on tonight's presidential debate, this from the front page of "usa today." opportunity and risk, they write

that biden is aiming to change the narrative regarding his age and donald trump will be playing offense and defense. from "usa today" to "the wall street journal," daniel henan injure has the byline on it, and he writes, it is not even going to be two guys on barstools at your local watering hole. debate on policy issues is what most voters would like to see, but they are unlikely to get any viewers and they will probably be disappointed if they don't get a cage match, no matter how much microphone muting cnn moderators impose, referencing the debate rules tonight. here they are, released by cnn earlier. it is a 90-minute debate with two commercial breaks throughout. there are no prompts or prewritten notes aloud.

candidates will be given a pen pad of paper, and a bottle of water. positions will be determined b a coin flip and microphones will be muted unless it is the candidates turn to speak. there is no live studio audience and moderators will "use all the tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion and cnn is hosting that debate tonight. it begins this evening at 9:00 p.m. eastern time and you will also be able to simulcast it on c-span2 and therec-span mobile app. a reminder, we will have a eview of the debate on c-span two, 8:00 p.m. eastern, and also reaction and your phone calls to tonight's presidential debate, 10:40 p.m. eastern, that is happening tonight and this morning on "washington journal,"

do presidential debate still matter? asking you 64 years after the first presidential debate took place, back in 1960. it was richard nixon and john kennedy. here is one minutes of that debate. [video clip] >> the vice president has said you were naive and at times immature. on this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the vice president? >> the vice president and i came to the congress together, 1946, i have been there now for 14 years, so that our experience in government is comparable. secondly, i think the question is, what are the programs we advocate? i come out of the democratic party, which in this century, has produced woodrow wilson and harry truman, and which has

sustained these programs, which i have discussed tonight. mr. nixon comes out of the republican party, nominated, and it is a fact that most of the 25 years, republican leadership has opposed federal aid for education, medical care for the agents, development of the tennessee valley, natural resources. i think mr. nixon is an effective leader of this party and i hope you would grant me the same. the question is, which point of view and which party do we want to lead the united states? >> mr. nixon, would you like to comment? >> i have no comment. [end video clip] host: john kennedy and richard nixon in a debate that many people in that era and aris looking back on that debate said mattered very much. do presidential debates still matter today in 2024? (202)-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002