mr. langevin: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm very proud of the work the cyber innovative technologies and information systems subcommittee has done on this legislation. it is our subcommittee's job to get cutting edge technologies into the hands of our war fighters as quickly as possible so that they never enter a fair fight. and i am certain now more than ever that we are putting the department on the right track when it comes to confronting emerging challenges with innovative solutions. this bill strengthens the ecosystem and more closely alliance the pentagon with the successes happening throughout the private industry. the bill also the bill prioritizes research efforts in hyper sonics, software, electronic warfare. and makes robust investments in quantum applications and makes investments in our laboratories and testing evaluation

infrastructure. we cannot develop technologies and attract top talent with crumbling infrastructure. and we provide robust support for our teammates at innovation centers like darpa who are taking risks in pursuit of payoffs. and cyber force to keep us safe in cyber space and operators have the careers they need to succeed. this bill includes a provision that i'm very proud of, the joint collaborative environment sharing information and other indicators across the federal government and between the public and private sectors strengthening those partnerships that are vital for protecting us in cyber space. this subcommittee has sighed to change the balance of the united states and our adversaries.

in closing, i thank chairman smith and ram schmidt and ranking member banks for their partnership over the years. serving on this committee has been an honor and privilege and i thank the professional staff and my personal staff for their hard work on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i yield 2 1/2 minutes of the ranking member intelligence and that is mr. kelly. mr. kelly: i rise in strong support of the fiscal year national defense authorization act. our military is facing unprecedented challenges and this body is charged with raising and supporting our military to ensure our safety at home and abroad.

i am incredibly proud of the items in this bill that allows our communities in keeping our aadversaries at bay. thank you for working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that i.s.o. equities. and the codification of the special 1202 authority. the authority authorizes to conduct irregular warfare operations and this is critical to compete and win in a great power competition and environment. i remain about our counterterrorism capabilities in afghanistan resulting from last year's withdrawal. the administration has failed to provide the report from 1069 of last year's ndaa. and we have the over the horizon capabilities. it remains clear this strategy

was not thought out from the beginning. i want to mention a few provisions in this bill. it includes an amendment to fund the priorities of our nation's military but the white house failed to support. and this would leave is ill-equipped. and provides an increase in military personnel pay and benefits to combat the impacts of inflation so our servicemembers do not struggle to support theses and their families. i cannot understate of securing our industrial base and ensuring millions of jobs. the hard working people in my district to keep our nation safe, secure deserve our support. this is not enough. we have an obligation to ensure our military is funded to compete and win wars against

china and russia. we have a responsibility to take care of our servicemembers and their families in this period of record-high inflation to retain the best talent and we have to improve our national security and empower our military leaders. i would be remiss if i don't thank my staff who worked. special shout out, chairman gallego. and my defense team. and i yield back and ask you to support this bill, please. mr.smith: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. escobar. ms. escobar: as vies chair of the subcommittee and representing for tmp bliss, i'm proud to speak in support of this bill which passed out of our committee with overwhelming

bipartisan support. the bill supports the military pay raise of 4.6% and targeted bonus to address the challenges of inflation and additional resources to decrease out of pocket costs for housing. it mitigates the tragedy of suicide by supporting an increase in the number of behavioral health providers to ensure access to care. and given concerns about the number of vacancies of civilian providers across the military health system, this reduces end strength until additional analysis is complete. we built on last year to the uniform code of military justice ensuring our legitimateors are getting the resources to support our troops and taking care of our military children. in 2021, more than 20,000

children who had immediate need for child care were stuck on wait lists. in order we are requiring the department of defense to complete a study. and better support families with special needs, the big establishes a grant program to help them navigate school systems after every move and children with disabilities receive educational services. servicemembers and their family members make countless sacrifices. i'm grateful to the chair woman speier for her leadership and the ranking member and proud of the contributions our subcommittee made to this bill. mr. chairman, this bill would make a tremendous difference in the lives of our military families. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield 2 1/2 members to the ranking member of

subcommittee strategic forces. mr. lamborn: i rise in support of the 2023 national defense authorization act. as the ranking member, i'm proud of the work by jim cooper and i miss working with my good friend. the recommendations put forth by the strategic subcommittee that directs the national hyper sonic initiative to bring an all of government approach to catch up to china and russia. the strategic subcommittee mark had a defeat strategy and provides additional funds for directed energy technologies to defeat these hyper sonic threats. and the bill comets a 16th battalion and the guam defense system and i'm particularly

proud that chairman cooper were able to find a compromise and fund the crews missile. our senate counterparts, senators king and fisher did so as well and i look forward to reconciling to continue research and development of this capable capability. funding a safe and reliable deterrent need not be a partisan exercise. we made progress in the space domain including d.o.d. to make publicly available a strategy to defend and protect our a on-orbit and space force to establish requirements for resilience of space systems as china and russia become more aggressive. in a bill with more amendments than any other single bill, a person can find something to disagree with. if you truly and value our nation's defense and understand

the threats we face, you will look at the major advances and you will support this bill. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from mr., guy ago who is the chair of the subcommittee. mr. gallego: i rise in support of the national defense authorization act. i congratulate my colleagues for bringing forward a bipartisan national defense authorization act for the second consecutive year. i want to thank my intelligence and ranking member trent kelly whose leadership and contributions to this bill. i would like to thank shannon, william and patrick and my personal office staff, michelle and charlie. this year's bill contains

address the world threats against putin and i started this year with my friend and baltic caucus. this bill takes historic strides to mitigate to increase transparency. as chairman of the special operations subcommittee, i'm proud of this this bill specifically, our bill invests across the enterprise and protects our war fighters by adding $91 billion top priority of accelerating the biodefense exaibts. our bill provides resources through special operations command has the hardware to conduct our more sense i have operations. and information operations and irregular warfare to ensure our

intelligence professionals are positioned to prevail in the complex environments they face every day. to being the most pressing challenge this supports our servicemembers with a 4.6 pay raise and $15 minimum wage and improves women's health care. this is an important bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i would like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the ranking member mr. whitman of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized whit whit i want to begin i do not agree with everything in this bill but the committee passed a bill worthy of your support and i command chairman smith and ranking member rogers for navigating a markup that was

16:12 and debate of 900 amendments. the house armed services agreed to increase our national security top line by over $35 billion, accounting for the damaging impacts on inflation and the rising threats tay we face today. i am proud of the decisive bipartisan vote of 57-1 that passed this bill out of committee. unfortunately this national security bipartisan effort is in peril. the rules committee has harmful provisions that speaker pelosi would like to attach to the backs of our servicemembers in support of our service and national security. i specifically hope during our floor debate we can move to exclude these harmful riders. as to the committee mark, we started with he anemic budget request that in the sea power portfolio requested eight ships

and retirement of 24 ships. many of these ships well before the end of their expected service life. fortunately with the top-line funding, we authorized 13 battle force ships and rebuffed the administration's request to retire 12 ships early committed to growing the navy. we are providing funding for the columbus class submarine and in the end, this is a strong sea power statement. i want to thank chairman joe courtney and thank him for his leadership on the sea power subcommittee. he is a teammate and dear friend that has the vision to see our national security perils and the political fortitude to respond to our most serious threats. this is worthy of support. we must remained focus on delivering a bill to provide the

resources our servicemembers need and thank the ranking member and mr. chairman -- i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i am now pleased to yield two minutes to mrs. luria, the vies chair of the committee. mrs. luria: thank you, mr. chairman. we must have the funding, equipment and resources they need. i'm proud to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that. that's why this ndaa represents a bipartisan effort to support our active duty personnel with a 4.6% pay raise and invest in the critical capabilities our armed forces need to defend our nation and our interests abroad. this year's ndaa also includes my request to increase defense spending by $37 billion. including at least $7.4 billion to combat inflation, more than $4 billion for ship procurement, over $1.6 billion in refn and

development and over half a bill in additional security assistance for ukraine. at a time when we face growing threats from china, this bill provides needed funding for 13 new battle force ships, including two virginia class submarines, three guided missile destroyers, two guided missile frigates and one landing platform dock. this sends message to our eye lies and enemies -- allies and enemies. additionally the ndaa includes several of my amendments to directly address access to mental health care, suicide prevprevention improve the -- ad improve the quality of life for sailors. while i'm proud of the bipartisan effort we've made so far, there's still more work that needs to be done. i hope that the final version of the ndaa will include my bill, the health care fairness for military families act, which will eliminate the disparity that tricare dependents face when compared to those on private health insurance. the bipartisan progress we've

made in this year's ndaa will grow our navy, strengthen our military and give a well deserved pay raise to our armed forces. i will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our military and look forward to negotiating with the senate on the final top line number. i want to thank the chair, ranking member, for your support in these effort, especially in growing and strengthening our navy and our whole armed forces and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the readiness subcommittee, mr. waltz of florida. mr. waltz: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank as well chairman smith and ranking member rogers for their strong bipartisan product that is worthy of our service members. i also want to thank chairman of readiness, representative garamendi, for his thoughtful and collaborative work on this bill. mr. speaker, the threats are growing. russia, iran, north korea and

most significantly china's most rapid military buildup we've seen in modern history. the bipartisan top line increase above inflation is a positive step. but our defense investments still fail to keep pace with the chinese communist party and their rapid military buildup. mr. speaker, i don't want to keep pace. our service members deserve better. we need to have overmatch over that military buildup. that's how we then keep the peace and maintain deterrence. as the ranking member of readiness, i know we cannot continue to afford to use our operations and maintenance accounts to pay for other priorities. russia's invasion of ukraine is a teachable moment for all of us. the entire world is witnessing that logistics, training, maintenance, wins or loses wars. china's own growing aggression in the vast indo pacific requires more operations and main nance funding for our --

maintenance funding for our partners and allies. we need to keep our forces forward. we cannot as a body continue to rob peter to pay paul. overall i believe this is a strong bill. it does hold our military accountable, but also makes significant steps towards deterrence. some key priorities, we authorize interoperable military exercises with taiwan. we permanently prohibited purchases of goods by the defense department from the chinese province. we require the military to be identified and listed. we allocate funding for incredibly important new construction projects at florida as i meltary bases -- florida's military bases and we set gender neutral fitness standards for our combat military occupational specialties in the u.s. army and perhaps, most importantly, we passed a wounded warrior bill of rights.

and finally, mr. speaker, as we continue to aid ukraine, we must be accountable for those taxpayer dollars and this bill would appoint an inspector general to oversee the aid that we are providing. mr. speaker, the number one job of the federal government is to keep the country safe. i urge my colleagues' support for this bill. and yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. we are prepared to close at this point. do you guys have any more speakers? mr. rogers: i do not. mr. smith: thank you. i yield myself the balance of our time. substantively i just want to reiterate my initial remarks. i think this is a good bill, you've heard a lot of the comments from the individual subcommittee chairs. many other members also krbilitied significant -- contributed significant and important policy to this legislation that gives us the opportunity to properly exercise oversight of the pentagon which is our job. i think this bill does an excellent job of that. i think as i mentioned, we have made some progress in recent

years. the one big point i did not emphasize sufficiently at the start of my remarks is how important innovation and new technologies are right now. i don't think there's been a time in the history of warfare where things have been changing as rapidly. we've certainly seen that play out on the battlefield in ukraine. but also in other fights that have happened? smaller conflicts, -- happened in smaller conflicts in the middle east. you have got to develop the new best innovative technology. as anyone would recognize, the pentagon is not typically good at moving fast. it is a large bureaucracy, it takes them time to process ideas. what we have done is we have put forth a number of innovative legislation to move that along faster so. that we can develop the -- faster. so that we can develop the better technologies. take advantage of drone technology, take advantage of a.i. make sure our systems are secure. that's made a huge difference to make sure we get the most out of the money we spend and we're in

the best technology to have the technologies we need -- in the best position to have the technologies we need. we have six members of our committee on the democratic side who are retiring at the end of this. congressman langevin, cooper, speier, brown, murphy and kahele. i want to thank them very much for the service, as you have heard many times, the cornerstone of this committee is our bipartisan approach and our commitment to regular order. to sending our bills through the normal process in committee, having markups, debates, then doing the same on the floor in a bipartisan way that makes an enormous difference. these members have contributed to that. i want to especially recognize a couple of them because a number have served for a long time on the committee. jim langevin, who is the chairman of the subcommittee with the really complicated name that i have to have written down to remember. but it has to do with cyber and intelligence matters. jim has dove into these issues. when i talk as i did about innovative technologies, it's

his subcommittee that focuses on putting us in the best position to deal with artificial intelligence. to figure out how to use director inning weapons and drones, to do the innovation that's crucial. and jim's knowledge level on this is above anybody in congress. he's done an outstanding job over i guess it's 22 years as a member of congress now. and subcommittee chair. his leadership has been invaluable in those crucial auto -- on those crucial issues. jim cooper also retiring as the subcommittee chair. very responsible for getting us to proper focus on space. there's a lot of talk about the space force, certainly that's part of it. but that was never really the entire point. the point was that space has become crucial in modern warfare. literally everything we do gets shut down if we don't have robust access to our space assets. recognize the importance of that and how much that has changed certainly in the last 50 years, but even in the last 10, chairman cooper has worked with

now ranking member rogers, also past chairman of that subcommittee, to make this happen. jim's intelligence and leadership has made a huge difference in those issues. jackie speier is retiring as the chair of the readiness committee. it's impossible to overstate the work she has done to look after the men and women who serve at our forces. most notably, of course, with her commitment to battling sexual assault and to getting the major sexual assault reform passed that we passed last year. to set up a special prosecutor who will focus on sexual assault cases. that was a 10-year effort. a lot of people ask me when they get involved in politics, they get frustrated that things aren't happening, they don't happen quickly, they get frustrated by the who process. i come up with the saying that says, look, in politics and public policy, you have to be patient and persistent. and nobody personifies that better than jackie speier. she was absolutely doggedly persistent on getting the changes necessary to help improve the way we handle sexual

assault and on a wide range of other issues that have helped protect the personnel who serve in our military. and lastly i want to specifically thank anthony brown. a past vice chair of the committee who has worked so hard on the diversity issues. we were able two years ago now to finally get passed and put in place a commission to change the names of the military bases in this country and facilities as well, not just base names, but those buildings and streets and a whole bunch of other things, that had been named after white supremacist confederate traders -- traitors. did he the work to get that through the entire process. all the way to the point of having to override the president's veto to get that done. now we have a commission that's working thon issue and certainly it's -- working on this issue and certainly it's crucial that they change the names. but what the commission is doing is they've held hearings all across the country in the communities where these bases are named to talk about the history, about how did we get to this point, what is it that we're actually talking about, how these bases weren't actually

named immediately after the civil war, they were named at the turn of the 20th century when there was an effort to re-establish white supremacy. to educate and include the community in the process. and ultimately in the names that were selected. never would have happened without anthony's hard work. so we have some outstanding members of the committee leading us this year. i appreciate their service and again i want to thank ranking member rogers, the republican staff. we've worked well together. it's not that we don't disagree. we absolutely disagree frequently. but we do so in a way that allows us to resolve those differences which is the essence of how a representative democracy is not just supposed to work but how it must work if it is to survive. so i appreciate the opportunity to be part of that process. again, i urge members to support this bill. it's an outstanding product. please vote yes and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you.

this is truly a bipartisan product and i thank chairman smith for his leadership in that effort. i know there will be an effort later today and tomorrow to add extraneous issues to this bill that have nothing to do with the defense of our nation. it happens every year. but like previous years we'll work through those and in conference we'll weed out the ones that don't need to come back to the floor. but before us today is a critical piece of legislation, a good piece of legislation. i urge its adoption. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. each further amendment printed in part a of house report 117-405 not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 1224 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, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon. shall not be subject to amendment 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 armed services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part a of house report 117-405 not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services for the respective or -- or theirs remain the -- or their respective designees. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. schiff of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment, which has passed the house three times, and which clarifies the authority of military commission judges to order court proceedings at be guantanamo bao be broadcast on the internet. it's a its core this amendment has a simple -- at its goal this core -- at its core, this amendment has a simple goal, transparency. people have the right to see proceedings, including against those who planned the 9/11 attacks. we owe transparency to the loved ones and families of the

victims. but we should also provide transparency for journalists, academics, n.g.o.'s and all concerned americans who are understandably deeply interested in these vital proceedings. importantly this bill does not require particular proceedings to be in open session. that will still be for the judges to decide. but when they are open to the public, they should be accessible so that victims do not need to travel to guantanamo to bear witness. i will continue to work i will work to permanently close the prison at guantanamo bay. this bill is fully protective of classified information and i environs counseling all members to support our amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i oppose the gentleman's amendment and allows

some of the most hardend terrorists a platform to publicly broadcast their missions. this has already been substantially delayed. hardened terrorists know there is a public audience for their hate will do more harm than good. federal courts have stuck to their guns such as the trial of massoui and even the biden administration has fought against prior versions of this amendment. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: is there time remaining in opposition or should i close?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has yielded. mr. schiff: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized to close. mr. schiff: i urge support for the bill. this bill does not require proceedings to be available online but ensures that judges do have that authority. and i think this is something that the victims would like because the victims would like to be able to observe the proceedings without having to travel to guantanamo and i urge support for the passage of this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: again, this amendment undermines the military commission's process and gives terrorists the platform and i urge my colleagues to vote no.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> request the yeas and nays pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 117-05.

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house 117045 offered by mr. jones of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. jones and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jones. mr. jones: i rise in support of my amendment, amendment number 2 which prohibits the department of defense from awarding contracts to companies engaged in anti-union activity. every worker needs a safe workplace and the opportunity to join a union if they so choose. but we know some companies spend millions of dollars illegally

fighting unionization efforts and get rewarded with government contracts. companies engaged in unfair labor practices, threats, bribery, coercion, spying and punishishing workers for their attempts at unionization are not barred. this amendment. it bars the department of defense of awarding billions of dollars in annual contracts to companies engaged in these illegal activities. president biden promised to be the most pro--union president in american history. i hope we can make this goal a reality. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on amendment number two. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is

recognized. mr. rogers: i oppose this amendment. mr. rogers: this amendment undermines the processes at d.o.d. federal contractors are required to comply with the national labor relations act. there are tools to bring contractors into compliance but this amendment takes it out of the hands of the contracting officer to determine whether or not a contractor is responsible. a simple paperwork violation would prohibit them contracting. and it is a departure from the processes we use to contract with bad actors and would undermine our and this would several limit the department's to help the war fighter. and i urge my members to oppose

the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: unfair labor practice will disqualify and if an employer refuses to set a violation or remains out of compliance of the terms and remains in terms of the setment they will so respectfully, my colleagues' concern is misplaced. there is a broader issue. why are we being asked to sacrifice to support defense capabilities? these are not mutually exclusive priorities. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from alabama.

mr. rogers: i would like to yield three minutes to my friend and colleague from georgia, mr. allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. allen: i rise in opposition to this amendment prohibiting employers from federal contracts for violations of the national labor relations act sir couple vepts compliance procedures and would have a significant impact on federal contractors. it dictates existing safeguards in the federal contracting process and has a system in place to deny federal contracts to companies that break the law. this will threaten federal contractors' due process rights because a federal contractor could be prohibited from d.o.d. contracts before a charge has been fully adjudicated and an employer could have been violated, but the employer has the right to appeal that

decision to the nag labor relations board and employers have the right to appeal to the u.s. court of appeals. it is unjust to bar them from federal contracts because they have exhausted all remedies of relief. and employers who are are represented by unions. they can be waived if the are represented by a union giving contractors a significant advantage over non-union firms. these prohibitions will encourage frivolous complaints and will organize nonfederal labor contractors. when the process is open and fair and not dependent on whether the federal contractor is unionized. this is in the best interest of taxpayers and i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. norcross: the gentleman is correct we want an open and competitive and fair contracting process. the department of defense is the largest golf contractor, over $400 billion. 60% are by the department of defense. this amendment would ensure that the d.o.d. contractors are not violating labor law. they do not have the privilege of receiving taxpayer dollars if they are violating this. these dollars should go to companies that are helping to build and strengthen our country and not tear it down. and this is why we are the debatest country and this makes it a reality.

unfair labor practices are more than just an accusation but one to be found in violation of the nlra. the idea of having this, you are approving to have violated it, you still have an option and you settle the problem. right now, the department of defense does have that issue. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this very important amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i reserve and am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: two minutes left. mr. jones: the freedom to join a union is essential, essential to

the dignity of workers to securing living wages and good benefits and building an economy that works for everyone not just the wealthy. current law recognizes how essential this freedom is and how the deck is too often stacked against workers. this is the very reason the national labor relations act exists and why unfair labor practices are illegal when employers are awarded for suppressing workers' rights, we undermine labor laws. we should be clear. democrats are fighting for middle class jobs with good pay and benefits and economy where one job is enough and 40 hours is enough to live in with dignity. republicans are not interested in protecting workers but the corporations that exploit workers for profit, corporations

whose bottom line keeps wages low. my republican want to protect the contracts of companies that violate labor law. i urge all of my colleagues to protect the rights of working people by voting yes on amendment number 2. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i urge all members to oppose this effort that could stop procurement and could delay construction of military housing projects. this is a bad amendment. i urge all members to oppose it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the

amendment is agreed to. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 117-05. >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of 1-r 17-05 offered by ms. schakowsky of

illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker, ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize myself for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: so my amendment is very simple. it gives a preference to defense contractors who will remain neutral in union organizing. i say neutral, not pro, not con. contractors who commit to remain neutral in organizing campaigns, commit not to breaking strikes, and it gives preferences also to those who would have a union bargaining agreement. these are not requirements, these are preferences. the kind of preferences that we have for small businesses, that

we have for veterans. and a number of other preferences that are given. now, let's understand that we are talking about $422 billion in contracts that are given to businesses. by the way, small businesses also have a preference. out of $778 billion defense act. so these are big taxpayer expenditures that we are talking about. and it seems to me, given that we want to make sure that workers are also acknowledged, that we say that it would be a good thing if we don't have companies like amazon, for example, that get a lot of money in defense contractors and spend a lot of money trying to make

sure that workers cannot bargain collectively. so let's give preferences to those who actually do acknowledge workers and that's the only idea of this contract, of this amendment. at this point i would like to recognize for one minute congressman garamendi in support of this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank representative schakowsky for this amendment. it's very important. this is about fairness in the workplace. this is about the opportunity for workers to have a say in their work life. this is about an opportunity for major companies that want to contract with the united states government, the department of defense, to stay neutral in any

organizing -- any unionizing opportunity that a union may be putting forward. the rights of workers who support our defense industry would be protected by this amendment. and the department of defense would continue to have the flexibility in the contracting programs that they have. with the billions of dollars that we're going to be spending as a result of this and previous bills, let's be fair to the workers. if they want to organize, fine. for the companies, it's time for them to be neutral and not do the kind of practices that we've seen from companies such as amazon and a few others. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment completely undermines the existing contractor debarment processes

at the d.o.d. federal contractors and subcontractors are already required to comply with the national labor relations act. there are already tools to bring contractors into compliance. but this amendment takes the decision out of the hands of the contracting officer to determine whether a contractor is responsible. i'd like to note -- if enacted this amendment would limit the department's ability to receive quality goods and services that drive up costs unnecessarily. federal contractors and subcontractors are already required to comply with the national labor relations act, yet this amendment would go further and seek to prefer contract awards based on compliance with labor agreements in a new and unprecedented way. regardless of its negative impact on small businesses and national security. i'd like to note this amendment is opposed by the national federation of independent businesses, as well as the workplace policy institute and the associated builders and contractors. i urge all members to oppose the amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: it is now my

pleasure to call on representative norcross for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for would minutes. mr. norcross: thank you for yielding. once again we're talking about our most valuable asset in this country, its workers. and the ability to treat them with fairness and giving them the ability to achieve the american dream. and that starts with their ability to go after contracts through their company. however, if their company is not playing by the rules, they're fighting their ability to have a voice in the workplace, to vote for a union, this is where the issue begins and where the amendment addresses. very simply it says, play by the rules have in neutrality agreement -- have neutrality agreement, and you should be given a preference. a preference for the american worker. and that's just so incredibly important, given the challenges of the supply chain. at a time where we are challenged throughout the globe of getting the parts, the supplies we need to build the

greatest defense in the world, we are being challenged because of something we have control over, our work force. and treating them well, fairly, under the rules of the government are incredibly important, that is why this amendment is so important. it says, to be responsible -- a responsible contractor, treat your employees fairly, level the playing field and let them have the choice and that's why i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. alan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. allen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment. mr. speaker, this amendment has one goal. to eliminate all nonunion contractors from d.o.d. contracts. it does not represent the modern work force.

modern work force is not interested in jurisdictional rules. they're interested in incentives to get the job done on time and on budget. it achieves this goal by favoring employers who want to do business with d.o.d. that signed neutrality agreements or already have collective bargaining agreements with labor unions. these so-called newt neu ralt government -- neutrality governments are anything but neutral. they stifle employee free choice and inhibit employers from talking about employees about the down sides of union representation. can you imagine an employer not being able to talk with their employees? one common provision in a neutrality agreement takes away worker's right to a secret ballot election. that's guaranteed, you know, in our elections. and allows unions to organize under the radical scheme that exposes workers to well documented instances of harassment and intimidation. even the u.s. supreme court describes card check as an admittedly inferior election process. another provision in neutrality

agreements places gag orders on employer speech that prohibits them from informing their employees about the impact that unionization can have on the workplace and their income. this amendment could also put workers' private information at risk. many neutrality agreements require employers to provide union access to employees' personal information. including home address, phone numbers and email addresses for the purpose of pressuring employees to sign union authorization cards. workers should be able to freely choose for themselves whether they want a union through a secret ballot election. instead this amendment encourages employers to work with labor unions to impose union representation on workers. it's not the american way. hardworking taxpayers deserve efficient and effective procurement policies, not rules that provide preferential treatment for special interest groups like labor unions. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield back

the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois has 30 seconds remaining. ms. schakowsky: thank you. i just wanted to point out that this doesn't have anything to do with stifling the rights of companies to communicate. it does prevent them from harassing workers and preventing them from doing what they need to do. i just want to point out that there are companies that include u.p.s., levi, at&t and verizon and most recently microsoft who have these agreements, big company does it, they can do it. let's protect workers and the rights of the companies as well. we can do both. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge all members to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. kim: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. kim of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kim, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kim. mr. kim: thank you. i rise to offer my amendment that will help small businesses and highly skilled workers in the building trades access new opportunities and unlock the local economic potential of military bases across the country. this amendment is not new. we passed it through the house before on a bipartisan basis. and i hope we'll do it again today. my amendment would incentivize the use of local workers for military construction projects by asking the secretary of defense to provide preference for businesses that commit to hire qualified, skilled workers from within the same state, or

within a 60-mile radius of the project. i represent joint base mcgwire which for decades has been an economic engine in my community. with thousands of jobs tied to operations on the base. however, too often the construction contracts of the base don't go to these local businesses, local workers, and instead go out of state. i introduced the put our neighbors to work act and offer as an amendment here for those skilled and qualified construction workers, electricians, painters and other local contractors in my district were look -- who are looking for that next opportunity and who are ready and willing to do this work and build d.o.d. infrastructure right in their own community. a community they are proud to live in and work that they want to do for our country. i'm proud that another key provision of my bill was adopted in the armed services committee markup which would require more transparency, to provide small businesses a fair chance to compete for subcontracting

opportunities under military construction contracts. i'd like to thank congressman pfluger, congressman norcross, congressman garamendi for co-sponsoring this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for local workers and local economies by passing this amendment which has passed the house, as i said, on a bipartisan basis the past two years. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment, this amendment requires local preferences, state construction licenses for all facilities construction projects. it is notable the opposition to this amendment, including chamber of commerce, the national defense industry of america, the association of general contractors, association

of building contractors and the american council of engineering. all of whom impose a notably -- and notably this provision last year was strongly opposed by the biden administration. mr. waltz: mr. speaker, this provision would increase time and money to an already difficult, lengthy and often slow military construction process. these are facilities that our fighting men and women desperately need. mr. speaker, it also impacts the skilled work force. local hiring preferences would significantly impact a military construction contractor's work force by creating scenarios where long-term, highly skilled workers may have to be released, may have to be laid off in order to meet the local hire mandate. and then in order to comply with the requirements, employers would have to bring in unnecessary and unskilled workers to fill these now vacant

positions, creating additional costs and creating additional safety concerns. local preference requirements falsely assume, and here's the fundamental issue, it is a false assumption that there is this automatic pool of qualified military contractors and workers wherever this military construction project may take place, often there is in some locations. in our most rural locations, there is not. and there is an assumption they are capable of performing this work. mr. speaker, the bottom line the provision would increase costs and expand an already ploated a military construction timeline and decrease the quality of construction in these vital projects. i urge opposition to this amendment. i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kim: i would like to yield to my colleague from new jersey. mr. norcross: i was one of those young electricians hoping to get a job and see somebody come hundreds of miles away with their company and undercut by literally cutting their wages. i'm not suggesting that happens everywhere but nothing more frustrating than to have a job in your local community that goes to outsider who traveled from very far distances to replace the workers who live there. each of us understand how much we care about our districts. each of us understands that on a level that is proven every november. we love our districts and help those in our districts.

this is why ip find it so surprising that we wouldn't want to fight for a local hire agreement. 60-mile radius. any point in our country, you will find qualified workers and god forbid -- and there are waivers allowed here for the department of defense to do thae important thing to understand and there are qualified people who do specialized work and they are the ones who live in that community and pay the taxes and have somebody come in from distances outside the state and don't pay the taxes, but when we have the ability to fight for our constituents in our districts local hire, this is a smart thing to do and not only

smart for the local people, but the good workers. but with that, i urge all my colleagues to vote for your districts and vote for this amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kim, reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kim: i have had the great opportunity to go around my state and around a lot of other states and visit military installations, and every single place i have been to, we are so proud to host these military bases and military installations is a duty that we consider sacred to support in our national security. and that requires our states and

communities to step up in different ways, to take on different actions to be able to accommodate and support these bases. we are proud, though, to be able to host and we hope they are proud of their relationship to us and be part of our community and this isn't about trying to have unskilled workers, it's exactly the opposite of that. this is something only to give d.o.d. to give preference to firms that hire locally and if that is not practical, i don't want this to be something that pushes in that direction. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i yield wonk minute to my colleague from virginia.

-- i yield one minute to my colleague from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized whit whit i rise in opposition. this is about making sure there are the proper work force placed in the right areas where the work is to be done. we have heard that the unavailability of skilled work force is causing delays in construction can jobs. last thing we need is delays of military construction jobs. and it undermines competition. competition is a good thing and open it up and everyone who has the capability to do this work is able to compete and when we don't have competition, that increases the cost to the united statesgovernment. why would we want to increase cost on these projects? there is a backlog of military construction projects.

it will add to the backlog and make it more difficult and add to the cost and add to delays. all of these things are countered of what we need to be doing. we need to be ensuring to reduce costs and time frames. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from florida is recognize. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has the only time left remaining. >> mr. speaker, military construction and sustainment is bureaucratic and cumbersome and slow and not providing our servicemembers what they need and that needs to be the focus, period. this provision would represent a momentum shift, a sea change this the way the defense contractors perform work with unknown costs to both the government and the contractors,

especially small business contractors. we have to get these projects done timely, on budget and get the facilities that we need to our servicemembers. i urge opposition. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 1224, previous question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to -- for what purpose does -- >> i ask for the yeas and nays the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further questions on this is postponed.

the chair understands that amendment number 5 will not be offered. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr.smith: pursuant to h. res. 1224 i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 650, 61, 62, 6 #, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 7.

82, 83, will 4, 86, 87, 88, 89. and 94, 96, 97, 99100. 101, 102, 105, 106, 107111, 112, 115, 116, 17, 118, 19. 121, 123, 124, 1246, 127, 128, 128, 131, 133, 135, 136, 178, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150.

151, 155, 156, 158, 159. 161, 162 and 163, printed in part arch of house report 117-405 offered by mr. smith of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington, mr. smith and the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, each will control 15 minutes. mr.smith: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. auchincloss. mr. auchincloss: while i will be unable to support the n dmp arch a that doesn't include wind production and i thank the chair

to indo-pacific and three of my amendments. the first amendment requires an independent of the pentagon's procurement practices and drives a harder bargain. the pentagon's price tag is too high because the bureaucracy pays for process, not performance. my second amendment to use production companies to build multi-family homes and bring costs for military families and inspire models that will benefit the wider economy. my third amendment would establish a process so they can get the care they need and hope this spurs better practice. as americans in massachusetts and beyond, grapple with the fallout from pfab exposure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i yield

back the balance of my time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise in support of this en bloc amendment and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota >> a grassroots of servicemembers had a survey truth and freedom and includes 60 pages of testimony from 600 servicemembers describing the treatment they have received from the department of defense in their attempts to receive a religious or medical exemption from covid-19 vaccine mandates. they are facing an unfair choice, get the shot in order to consider tear patriotic defense or sacrifice military careers or risk the benefits. i am aware that certain branches are self-reporting on religious

and medical exemptions. however, it is important to detail a report that requires the department of defense to be as transparent regarding their denials of religious and medical exemptions. my amendment would require the d.o.d. to report the number of religious and medical exemptions for the covid-19 vaccine exemption and denied. the number of members depped and exemptions that complied and got the shots and the number of members who got an exemption who who did not comply and separated from service. we need to bring to life how many servicemembers have been coerced to get the vaccine or forced to separate. and for a what reasons. this mandate is putting our

national security at risk for no good reason and i am certain this amendment will prove that. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. mr.smith: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford. mr. rutherford: i rise in support of amendment number 83. this amendment would provide oversight over the d.o.d.'s management of religious and medical exemptions for the covid-19 vaccine requirement. at a time when we need every service member we can get, i am concerned that people are being discharged from the military

without full consideration of their religious or medical exemptions. it is past time for more transparency in the exemption process so our servicemembers' requests are being considered and fairly adjudicated. i don't think our servicemembers should be subject to covid-19 vaccine at all, the least we can do is bring transparency to the process for those who are seeking a legitimate exemption. i thank you for introducing this amendment and looking out for the best interests of our men and women in uniform mr. smith: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, my colleague, mike burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this en bloc includes my anticipated, number 114.

to require the secretary of defense to submit a report to congress every six months detailing the short and long-term plan for the pentagon's response to ukraine's -- to russia's invasion of ukraine. russia invaded ukraine in february. and yet we have not had another briefing by our military generals and the state department and director of national intelligence as we did prior to that invasion. now, it was reported in fox news on february 5 of this year, general milley predicted that kyiv would fall in three days' time. that did not happen. and the ukrainian people have bravely been fighting that war and it has now evolved into a war of attrition but congress has not been read into any of the administration's plans. the speaker of the house brought a bill to the floor rapidly to provide $40 billion to the military effort in ukraine. i, like everyone else, am horrified by what russia is

doing on the ground in ukraine. i supported that bill. but you cannot bring another bill to the floor of this house, asking for continued aid, when we have not even had a report or briefing by the people advising the administration on what is happening on the ground. we have to have that information simply -- information. simply adding more money to what has already gone without a strategy to back up that assessment is a failure on the part of the house of representatives and one in which i will not participate. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to another colleague from the texas delegation, mr. crenshaw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of amendment

23, to create a grant program for psychedelic treatment for ptsd. that may come as a shock so many and i say good. because, to be frank, we need new ideas, because it seems like we're losing the battle with veteran suicide. and for our active duty service members, the situation is even worse, as they are precluded from even trying treatments such as psych democrat deltics that could -- psychedelics that could save their lives and bring hope to their families. i aim to change that. first of all this form of treatment actually isn't new. it's proven and it's tested. many hear the word psychedelics and they think acid trips from the 1960's. they may believe this amendment would legalize or deschedule psychedelics but that is not what we are talking about here. what we're talking about is the proven use of psychedelics to treat ptsd. private sector research shows that following mdma treatments, 88% of veterans have a significant reduction in symptoms, and 67% no longer have

ptsd. and this treatment also has a face. it is service members like jonathan, a veteran who made multiple suicide attempts until psychedelic treatment saved his life. he credits his treatment as the reason his son, joey, has a father instead of a folded flag. it is men like marcus, a s.e.a.l. team 6 operator who credits it with treating his ptsd, saving his life and bringing his family back together. and it's my own friends the. people -- friends. people i served with on s.e.a.l. teams that told me that this cost effective, often one-time treatment, has completely transformed their life. and all i'm asking is that we give our service members the ability to access this treatment, instead of forcing them to travel abroad to psychedelic clinics to save their own life. i ask my colleagues to get outside of their comfort zone and vote for this amendment. our service members deserve it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized.

mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from washington, ms. strictland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. strickland: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i have the honor of representing joint base lewis mccord, the largest military base on the west coast, and tens of thousands of service members and their families who call the south puget sound home. i'm pleased that the ndaa raises base pay by 4.6% and includes inflation bonuses. the top concern that i hear from command staff and service members and their families is a lack of housing and housing that's affordable. that's why in april i introduced a four-bill package, ensuring every service member has a home. i'm very pleased that this bill includes the basic allowance for housing calculation improvement act, and the increasing home ownership for service members act. this act directs d.o.d. to create a more transparent and modernized way to calculate the

housing allowance. the defense bill also directs d.o.d. to consider restoring the housing allowance back to 100%. i'm also pleased that we will direct d.o.d. to collect data on scholarship rewards and ro trveg c -- rotc program completion by gender, by race and ethnicity. many officers come through rotc. but unfortunately fewer officers of color come through rotc compared to other commissioning sources. we must find out why. this year's ndaa invests in the lives and livelihood of service members and their families. i strongly urge adoption of this important legislation. i yield back, mr. chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington yields back. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. davidson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, to my colleagues that

have done a lot of work on this ndaa. frankly, it's a huge bill. we're deliberating on a lot of amendments and, frankly, we're not deliberating on a whole bunch more that i wish we could debate. but i do want to rise in support of amendment number 35 offered by representative jacobs. which is included in this en bloc package. this amendment would require the department of defense to report which agencies have purchased or used american location data, phone records, internet browsing data, and so on. our amendment does not reveal any classified information. purchasing sensitive data about americans from data brokers and other sellers allows the federal government to potentially circumvent fourth amendment warrant requirements. so who is purchasing it is of interest. if it's recruiting command, to find out how to microtarget people the way many of our campaigns do, that's something different than what a lot of people fear it is, it's part of

a surveillance program and frankly warrantless data collection on american citizens. media reports from the "wall street journal," "the new york times" and others have documented the department of defense's purchasing of our sensitive data. military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the greatest power to abuse these warrant -- this warrantless access to our sensitive personal and private data. this transparency measure is a first step toward addressing the erosion of the fourth amendment and i am proud to have co-sponsored this amendment with representative jacobs. i encourage all my colleagues to protect our fourth amendment right to privacy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i have no further speakers -- oh, i do. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. waltz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes.

mr. waltz: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to take a moment. i have no issue in principle with more joint strike fighters. we need more joint strike fighters and we need to continue to modernize our aviation fleet. my issue here is where the money for it comes from. as i was just saying in my previous comments, we have to as a body, we have to as a congress and as a military stop robbing peter to pay paul, to stop robbing operations and maintenance to buy new things. just as a few examples of the many accounts that would be detrimented to pay for these f-35's, we have 50dz million from army operations -- $50 million from army operations and maintenance. $100 million from navy military man power and personnel. $56 million from air force

maintenance. $62 million from base support and the list continues. colleagues, we have to build in the operations and maintenance for new things we want to buy rather than taking from the things we've already bought that literally cannot sail or fly. mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. so at this time i urge adoption of this en bloc package and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i too urge adoption of the en bloc amendments and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members, pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the question is on the amendments en bloc.

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. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. escobar: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by ms. escobar of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. escobar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. escobar. ms. escobar: scoa thank you, mr. i rise today to ask for -- ms. escobar: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to ask for support for my amendment to allow service members to get their

chains of command to process their complaints of harassment and proo hinted discrimination -- prohibited discrimination in a timely manner. my amendment does not grant service members any new rights or expand existing ones. nor does it allow them to sue the department of defense. it simply gives them the leverage to hold their chains of command to their own timeline for processing complaints that have been failed -- filed. our service members put their lives on the line protecting our country every day. they make the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country in ways that many cannot. when they file complaints alleging serious harassment and discrimination they've experienced while serving, they deserve to be heard and to receive timely responses. data shows that civilian military employees file far more discrimination and harassment complaints than service members do, despite having a smaller work force than our service members. this is because our service members lack many of the protections and privileges that their civilian counterparts have

when it comes to discrimination and harassment, including this one. while this benefits all service members, my amendment would be especially significant for women and minorities serving in the armed forces. data from one pentagon survey showed nearly 1/3 of black service members and a significant percentage of asian and hispanic service members experienced racial harassment, discrimination or both during service. this is talent we need to work to retain and my amendment would help with that. our service members deserve meaningful and robust policies that ensure their complaints are processed expeditiously and with the utmost urgency. my amendment respects the systems the services have for processing complaints. it simply creates a time limit to ensure they are processed within a reasonable time frame that is respectful of the service members and their experiences. simply put, it ensures that

after 180 days, if a service member's complaint remains unresolved, the service member can request a court order that would then direct the department to act on the case expeditiously. absent this amendment, service members routinely wait months and months and sometimes even years for their complaints to be resolved, with no ability to urge the services to act on their complaints. this amendment brings an added level of urgency into internal administrative processes. my amendment would empower our service members and bolster confidence in the systems in place. by passing this amendment, we're thereby extending protections civilians already enjoy onto our service members whose battles should be fought on the battlefield. not within the ranks. mr. chairman, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five

minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment creates an existential threat to the good order and discipline of the military. a service member may seek an order from u.s. district court demanding a status update or final action within 180 days after any supervisor or office receives a complaint. this creates an this creates an unprecedented wright to sue commanders and force proceedings, some of which could be tied to active law enforcement investigations. an activist district court judge could reverse or set aside the decision of a commander. i wish -- i understand my colleagues wish to do away with umcj altogether, and this is the first step. this will not benefit those who need protection the most and will undermine the strong bipartisan work that's taken place on sexual harassment and sexual assault. i urge my colleagues to oppose

the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. escobar: i have tremendous respect for the ranking member and the work he's tone on our great committee. i do want to emphasize that service members would not be allowed to sue the department of defense. what -- and in fact, in many of these cases what happens is, the cases are resolved by policy or should be resolved by policy within about 60 days. so this actually gives the service lines added time to resolve these cases. this is for those egregious examples, and i have spoken with service members who have had to live with these egregious examples, of lack of a true effort to resolve these harassment and discrimination claims. so this would be a last resort that would simply urge -- have a court urge the service line to

complete the investigation of harassment or discrimination. we are currently experiencing a challenge in recruitment. we want to retain this talent and we want to demonstrate to our service members that they matter, all of them, and that we will ensure they have access to a free and fair process. mr. chairman work that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. escobar, yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: this amendment abolishes the good order and discipline of the military. it should be rejected. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to -- the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment -- the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. rogers: i request the yeas and nays, recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. khanna: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 117-405, offered by mr. khanna of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from california, mr. khanna, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. khanna: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman smith as well as ranking member rogers for their

leadership to include various measures in the underlying bill that will aid the department of defense's effort to prevent and mitigate civilian harm. including establishing a center for excellence in commission and civilian harm mitigation. i'd like to thank the house staff including katy, phil and robert for their work on. this it should not be a partisan issue to mitigate civilian harm. my amendment would simply authorize the resources for the department of defense to implement these policies of reducing civilian casualties which congress already required the department of defense to do nearly four years ago. my amendment would allow the department of defense to spend $5 million per year to implement the requirements of section 936 of the john mccain ndaa for fiscal year 2019.

section 936 passed by this body four years ago requires the department of defense to establish uniform processes and standards across combatant commands for improving tracking, reporting, analysis, and response to civilian casualties from u.s. military operations. appropriately named after the late senator john mccain who believed deeply that the united states military should minimize civilian casualties. this is something that everyone in our military believes. now the department of defense has made extraordinary process in recent years in preventing civilian harm. secretary austin has shown leadership in accelerating that progress as we -- progress. as he says, i quote, our efforts to mitigate and respond to civilian harm are a direct reflection of u.s. values. some of my colleagues wan to prevent harm because of their own personal experience in combat or witnessing war zones where civilians have been

killed. and some are motivated because they want to prevent terrorists from exploiting civilian casualties as a recruiting tool. but to do this we need resources. and i don't think $5 million a year is very much. it's less than, not just 1%, it's less than not just .1%. it's less than .01% of the entire budget to help make sure we have the resources to track and report and minimize civilian casualties. so i am hopeful we can get bipartisan support for this amendment and i already want to recognize that this ndaa does a lot on minimizing civilian harm including the establishment of the center for excellence and want to thank, again, chairman smith for his leadership on that. i want to reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment is a misuse of funds on behalf of the d.o.d. as my colleague just referenced this bill already includes funding increases for a myriad of civilian harm programs. there's $5 million for the center of excellence in civilian harm mitt tbaition and $4 million for the commission on civilian harm. this amendment diverts critical dollars needed to ensure the readiness of our service members to fulfill unnecessary paperwork rierpts. worst of all it creates additional bureaucrats throughout the d.o.d. whose job it is to second-guess the commanders. i urge members to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. khanna: i urge adoption of the amendment. i would just point out that a lot of these requirements

already have passed, they are in the 2018ndaa. and just want to say that the amount of money we're talking about here is less than .01% so it will not have a negative impact on the total budget. just want to thank again, now that he's here in person, our chairman, chairman smith, for all of the initiatives on the ndaa. i will say that this ndaa more than any in my six years in congress has tackled civilian casualties and i hope that it'll continue to be a bipartisan commitment in the house to reduce them to the extent possible. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from pennsylvania, general perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: i thank the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member, for the opportunity.

as the gentleman from california said, nobody in uniform wants civilian casualties. we work very diligently to make sure that there are not civilian casualties. but this almost assumes that we don't. that we actually don't care about civilian casualties when it couldn't be further from the truth. mr. speaker, what this does is add more bureaucracy and takes the focus off of what service members need to do in very difficult circumstances when oftentimes the difference between life and death, between the service member's life of his own and those of his or her troops that are following them in -- him or her in combat, it's a moment. it's a moment to make a decision. mr. speaker, at that moment, when lives are on the line, when american lives are on the line, in the face of our enemies, in the face of terrorists, what the

gentleman from california would have those service members do is take a moment, take that moment, to figure out if the decision they're making is optimal or not or in the case where i watched service members who filled the trigger, come back and the first thing they had to do, first thing they had to do was go to the jag and explain why they returned fire. mr. speaker, those moments, those moments cost american lives. that's what this amendment is going to to do. that's why i adamantly oppose it. i ask my colleagues to oppose it. i yield the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i just urge opposition to this. it th amendment represents a waste of taxpayer money, i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. the question is on the amendment. 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 rise? >> yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to secti section 3-s oe resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk, lee number 13. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report number 117-405, offered by ms. lee of california.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. ms. lee: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i rise in support of our amendment, the lee-pocan amendment number 13 to cut $100 billion from the fiscal 2023 defense authorization act. the amendment is structured so this cut would not reduce pay or benefits for uniformed and civilian personnel or their families and i want to thank my co-sponsors, starting with my friend and co-chair of the defense spending reducks caucus, congressman mark pocan. i want to thank chairman smith and chairman mcgovern for their support to permit us to bring this amendment to the floor. mr. speaker, this house again stands poised to pour over $800 billion into a defense establishment that is

unaudittable, unaccountable and does little to answer the biggest threats to the safety and the welfare of our people. the pentagon is the only, mind you, the only federal department that has never passed an audit. and yes, i worked to get a requirement the d.o.d. pass an audit written into permanent law a couple of years ago with the help of my friend and colleague chairman smith and also our colleague dr. burgess. and yet still, the pentagon says it won't be able to pass an audit for almost another decade. what is this about? it's really -- a shame and disgrace. it's not hard to find places to cut at the pentagon. in fact, last year, senator sanders commissioned a congressional budget office study that detailed various scenarios for how we could save $100 billion per year without compromising american security. and that $100 billion is sorely

needed for other key national priorities. if we reinvested that $100 billion it could pay to hire one million elementary school teachers to relieve the current teacher shortage. it could pay to power every home in america with solar energy. or it could provide every family in america with $700 stimulus payment. we face an array of threats in america today including the continuing covid health emergency and the impacts of climate crisis. it's our duty to look for savings at the pentagon and meet the urgent needs of the american people. soy urge my colleagues to support our amendment. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. ms. lee: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr.

speaker. this amendment would arbitrarily strip $100 billion out of this bill. that's a 12% total defense spending it would cut. this amendment would have catastrophic effects on training and readiness. it will endanger the safety of service members by declaying -- delaying critical service upgrades on combat vehicles and where they serve. it would put off construction of new military house, schools and child care facilities. it would further postpone critical modernization efforts needed to deter china and other adversaries and the list goes on and on. i urge members to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. ms. lee: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of our amendment to reduce the pentagon's budget. first, let me thank congresswoman lee for your

partnership on this issue and thank you for securing our nation always by pursuing peace first. thank you. $89 -- $839.3 before we include anything of up to the 650 amendments this week is too much with too little accountability. we already spend more on defense than china, india, the united kingdom, saudi arabia, japan, and south korea combined. it's more than double the amount of funding the e.p.a., health and human services, departments of education, energy, state, housing and urban department, agriculture all receive combined. this bill also goes above and beyond what the department of defense asked for in its budget request submitted to congress. and yet, the department of defense still can't pass an audit of the funding it receives, a requirement of virtually every other agency. let's stop rewarding the building of amphibious vehicles

that sink, the f-35 that still have hundreds and hundreds of recognized deficiencies that have not been addressed and four aircraft carriers with toilets that cost $400 million in chemicals to flush when clogged. yes, we flush defense dollars down the toilet. let's fix this. at some point, spending doesn't actually just make you safer. it's security theater and contractor profit yearing. we need a modern definition of defense, one that recognizes real national security threats like covid, cyberattacks and climate change. the current defense budget doesn't do that. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of the time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. i don't believe we have any additional speakers. so i will close, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. it's really past time for congress to start demanding that the pentagon exercise some fiscal discipline that we impose against and across all of the federal government. also, we individually have fiscal discipline that we must exert. we have budgets we have to live within. the pentagon budget is running amuck. this is taxpayer dollars which should be at least audited and the pentagon should be held accountable. again, this amendment would hold harmless the people who serve in the military or who work at the pentagon and their families. the c.b.o. has demonstrated that we can trim the pentagon budget without compromising security and doing so we free up resources to invest in our country and in our people. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time is up. the gentleman from alabama is

recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has the last -- mr. rogers: time has expired? with that i'll close. this amendment guts the bill. it harms our service members and their families. it severely weakens our ability to defend ourselves and our allies. it gives -- given putin's atrocities in ukraine and what we're facing in iran, this is the worst time to start slashing defense spending. i urge members to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members, pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is offered by -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. 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 alabama rise? mr. rogers: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

it's now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by ms. lee of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: mr. speaker, our amendment, the lee-pocan number 14, reverses egregious pentagon increases added during the committee markup and this is mind-boggling. our amendment trims back fiscal

2023 ndaa to no more than the amount requested by president biden. we have numerous glaring examples of waste, fraud, and abuse within our defense establishment and, yet, some of our colleagues insist on piling more money into the pentagon than our military leaders, our president even asks for. despite d.o.d. routinely returning unspent balances to the treasury. enough is enough. americans are demanding that congress rebalance our priorities and invest in the biggest challenges, which we face. the $37 billion could be better spent -- that's how much over the president requested. $37 billion. it could be better spent to extend the child and earned income tax credits, improve health care access, and pay for medicare hearing benefits for seniors. $37 billion could hire 300,000 nurses to alleviate the nursing

shortage or fund free quality childcare for more than 800,000 chi children, to help caregivers get back to work. while i personally support much larger cuts, we need to draw the line somewhere. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. here we have another amendment that would arbitrarily slash defense spending. this time it's $37 billion added by mr. golden and mrs. luria, two democrat members of our committee, during our markup. the amendment before us now would eliminate 2.4% pay bonus for enlisted personnel, people that make less than $45,000. it would erase $500 million in housing allowances to counter skyrocketing rents for low-income service members.

and it would delete $750 million we added to reduce the price of groceries and other necessities at military economy sears. the -- commisaries. their amendment would strip out a bipartisan effort to ensure our service members with the lowest incomes don't face those same difficulties. it's hypocrisy at its worse. i urge all members to oppose the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the chairman of the armed services committee, chairman adam smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that. i think we need to get to a reasonable defense budget. full disclosure. i don't support the effort to cut $100 billion from the defensive budget. we have clearly articulated needs. the president and the department of defense when he put forward his budget took that into

account. one of the things i have always been worried about on the armed services committee, if we give them more and more money they won't spend it as well as they should. they won't have the fiscal discipline to make sure the money is being spent wisely. which i said many, many times is as important and in more cases more important than how much is spent. over the course of the last 20 years we have not had a good record. many programs have gone overbudget and underperformed. we have gotten better. the president put forward his budget. we ought to respect that budget and support it. it's more than enough to support the country. if we go back to the president's number it's $813 billion which is a significant -- i think it's a 4% increase over last year's budget. it's not like we aren't spending money if we stick to the president's budget. i think that number should work. i think that's the number we should stick to. i thank the gentlewoman for offering that amendment and making the arguments she has. thank you. i yield back. -time the gentleman yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maine, m mr. golden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. the gentleman from maine. mr. golden: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment seeks to undo a bipartisan agreement to increase authorized funding for our military that the armed services committee collectively concluded is appropriate given the realities of today's evolving national security threats. we're faced with some serious threats globally. ongoing terrorist threats. the potential for nuclear proliferation in the middle east. tensions in the south china sea. russia's invasion of a democratic state in europe. incredible technological advancements we can't fall behind on in a.i., quantum, disinformation campaigns, and data surveillance that strengthen authoritarian regimes and lend themselves to attacks on democratic societies. this agreement -- this amendment that i offered invests in our

navy, critically important right now. it invests in missile defense, which is very necessary given technologies and things like hypersonics and a.i., quantum computer, as i discuss -- computing, as i discussed. it increases critical assistance to the ukrainian military. as our military seeks to prepare to grapple with these new future realities, it must also do so in the face of significant supply chain disruptions results from covid and from rising inflation, which my amendment also addresses. the ranking member spoke, i think, correctly about the need to protect those who serve our country. particularly those on the lower end of the scale who are having a very negative impact because of higher grocery costs, higher housing costs. particularly crowd of the bonus that are in this amendment to look out for them. bottom line, this $37 billion amendment is bipartisan. it was and remains necessary for

the national security of our country. i appreciate that some people might choose some different sets of priorities on how best to support our military. there are in fact some amendments out there that would set different priorities for how this additional funding should be spent. but rolling back this defense top line overall, you know, just for the sake of having a debate about the topline i believe points us in the wrong direction. that's because of the dangers that we face today and those that we know are just around the corner which we really can't afford to delay trying to address right now. many people believe that we're falling behind in some of these important issues that i've been talking about. again, the biotechnology, the quantum computing, missile defense, and other things. so we think that this is a good compromise. i appreciate the ability to work across the aisle with my colleagues on the committee. for these reasons, mr. speaker, i'd urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. i yield one minute now to the gentlelady from california. ms. jacobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. jacobs: well, thank you, mr. chair. thank you, ms. lee, for offering this incredibly important amendment. it is simply wild that at the same time that our republican colleagues are complaining about runaway inflation, we would increase federal spending on things the pentagon itself has says it doesn't need. the initial defense budget request was already more than $750 billion. and with this plus-up, it will be over $800 billion. $800 billion on outdated and expensive legacy platforms while we are still failing to meet the needs of our service members and their families. san diego, the community i'm proud to represent, is home to the largest concentration of military personnel in the country, and yet, even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense in recent years, we have more than 39,000

of military families who visit the san diego food bank every month even after spending over $800 billion, there will still be thousands of military families on childcare wait lists in san diego. i reject outdated systems and things we don't need. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the lee-pocan amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs, yields back. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: ok. thank you, mr. speaker. i'll close now. just let me say a couple things. first of all, i would hope republicans would join democrats in a bipartisan fashion, like you did just now on this outrageous amendment and supporting efforts to reduce the cost of living for people who are living on the edge. but i don't see any bipartisanship there when it comes to supporting the american people. and what they need in terms of

their wages, in terms of housing, in terms of health care, in terms of all of the efforts that democrats have mounted over the years. too bad that you won't join us in that but you join them in raising the defense budget to an excessive level over what the military and what the president requested. it's outrageous. and i'd like to note that the house has voted overwhelmingly to support ukraine and we certainly should support better pay and benefits for our uniform and civilian personnel and their families, which the base bill does. . if the president thinks more should be done and more is needed, he should do as has always been done, come to the congress for a supplemental. he came to congress for a supplemental for ukraine if he believes more is needed that's the proper process and way to do this, not by increasing the ndaa top line. it's time to shift our spending to meet america's urgent human

security priorities and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i'm so really concerned that whatever -- whatever people want on that side of the aisle especially and some on this side of the aisle as it relates to the pentagon, people get. members get. that's not a good place for this country to be. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i would point out the $37 billion that was added in a bipartisan fashion in the committee does not meet all the unfunded requirements submitted to the committee, to the congress by the defense department. like all americans, our service members are suffering the ha harmful effects of inflation. we worked hard to address that. this amendment would strike that from the bill. i don't know why anyone would want to have that effect on the

service members. i urge members to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman gelds -- the gentleman yields back. the equestion is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. rogers: recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. jayapal: i have an amendment at the clesk desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 117-405. offered by ms. jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jayapal: this is a wish list of items that d.o.d. would like to have but are not necessary to carry out its duties. the practice doesn't meaningfully strengthen our national security. instead it worsens waste, fraud and abuse in military spending. these wish lists are packed with billions of $of superfluous line item, this year totaling more than $24 billion on top of the $773 billion requested by the white house. but don't just take my word for it. defense secretary lloyd austin said last year that the president's budget request for fiscal year 2022 met d.o.d.'s requirements and yet d.o.d. was required by law to submit these wish lists which have not been

approved by any top leadership at the defense department as actual priorities. top d.o.d. officials have in fact expressed strong skepticism about the practice. in a june, 2021 hearing, general milley said of unfunded priority, if they were critical they need to be higher on the priority list and in the base budget. in april, undersecretary mccord testified before the budget committee that i sit on that the unfunded priorities list should not, and this is a quote, should not be confused with saying the budget is not adequate. he went on to describe to me the problem with what happens when different people within the defense department who are overseeing their own units, submit something and just say it's a priority when overall defense leadership has not had the opportunity to prioritize actually and even look into whether those things are priorities or not. former defense secretary robert gates all but banned the list, strongly discouraging his

generals from submitting these lists to congress during his tenure. and despite the skepticism of top d.o.d. officials the pentagon is required by law to submit these wish lists to congress. it wasn't always that way. though the practice has been around for a few decades, unfunded priority lists weren't statutorily required until 2017. so all my amendment does is to make this process optional again. the mandate only exists to serve the interests of defense contractors, eager to grow their profits by selling flashy equipment. in 2021, the defense industry spent more than $118 million lobbying congress to sell their products and meanwhile, we can't even verify that the money that we authorized to d.o.d. is spent responsibly because as my colleague ms. lee said it's never passed a budget audit. the most recent audit found a navy warehouse full of $126 million of aircraft parts not listed anywhere in the records. we don't need to encourage this irresponsible spend big requiring d.o.d. to give us a

wish list. most importantly we should actually pay attention to the priorities of the top leadership of the defense department. which the unfund priorities list does not do. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in strong opposition this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: this would prohibit congress from receiving unfunded priority lists from service chiefs and combatant commanders. these are the individuals responsible for executing military operations around the world. it's critical that congress know what the service chiefs and the combatant commanders need to keep our service members safe and ensure success in their missions. here's a couple of examples of f.y.2023 unfunded priorities from the chief of staff. $67 million for body armor for

female soldier. $65 million to acquire cold weather boots, gloves and sleeping bags for trooped deployed to cold weather environments. neither of these critical needser were funded in the biden propose weasm funded them in this bill only because they were included on the general's unfunded priority list. we likely wouldn't have known about them otherwise. that's just a couple of examples of why this is misguide. there are hundreds more just like it. i want to remind members that the president proposes a budget number that the service chiefs and combatant commanders have to salute and say yes, sir, hopefully one day, yem, that's our number we're going to make it work. regardless of what they need. we have to have that unfunded requirements list so we can know what they actually need and we can then act because the fact is the president proposes budgets, we write budgets. i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized.

ms. jayapal: mr. speaker, i yield a minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker: the gentleman is reck -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, mr. rogers well said why we should pass this amendment. we have been played a bad game here. if it's so important, general mcconville thinks it's so important, why didn't he fight vigorously for it in the base budget? yes, the president does propose but that proposal is a proposal that comes from the department from all of the various parts of the department and it is put together at the white house. the president doesn't just dream this up himself. it is in fact the priorities of the department. disciplined priorities. the unfunded list is a game we're being played upon. we're the pawns in the game they have. it was very well stated in the

previous opposition. to this amendment. let's have some discipline here. the unfunded priorities list is a way in which the department's various parts play us against each other. and play the president. so let's eliminate all of that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman and thank him for his service on this committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. i think it's incredibly important. mr. garamendi outlined it well. there's a process to go through what the budget should be. once the process is done you should respect the process, not allow everyone in the institution to say i'd like to have more money. i can assure you there'd be unfunded requirements in every single aspect of government. you have to make choices.

that's what d.o.d. does. that's what the budgeting process does. what the unfunded requirements list does is perpetuates the notion that you can never spend enough money. and i submit that that attitude toward the defense budget that whatever it is, it has to be higher, has a lot to do with all the inefficiency, the lack of an audit, the number of programs that have gone over budget and underperformed. the number of programs that have never worked out the way we envisioned them. if there was fiscal discipline in place we would get to a better result. allowing people to always ask for more no matter what, undermines fiscalties plin. i submit it undermines the effectiveness of the department of defense. i strongly support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentlewoman from washington's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment would rob congress of critical information we need to keep our service members safe. i urge members to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members, pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. the question is on the amendment. 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 alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in parse a of house report 117-405, offered by

mr. smith of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this amendment has to do with the retirement of nonly tomorrow -- of nonlitoral combat ships. the navy wants to retire those ships. there was a part of the bill that prevents them retiring five of those. this amendment would allow them to retire the ships. we just heard about the wisdom of service secretaries and how they know what they need. well they know they no longer need these nine combat ships. we should not be blocking their effort to save money and retire them. the biggest problem is the ships are not that old. they are not. but they have also not turned

out to perform the way they were expected. in particular, they were supposed to have anti-submarine capability, they were supposed to be de-mining capabilities. they have neither of those. they also have significant maintenance problems and costs associated with simply operating them. the navy has determined that it is better to invest in newer, more modern, more capable plat forms and we are blocking their ability to do that. littoral combat ship has not lived up to expectations. it is extraordinarily difficult time to figure out how do you built the right systems? but throwing good money after bad doesn't make sense. that's primary argument for not allowing the navy to do. this well, they just built them. almost whether they work or not why would we retire them after three or four years? because they are not working as expected and they are not cost effective. i urge we adopt this amendment to allow the department of defense to do what they want to do. retire the ships and build a

better, stronger, more capable navy. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i'd like to speak for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman claim time in opposition. >> claim time in opposition and seek to speak for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have to speak in opposition to the amendment. the bottom line is the lcs does have capability. it has mine hunting capability. it has fast attack capability. that's capability we would give up in time where we need that capability. and if you're going to do away with that capability, the question is, with the savings that you accrue which is about a half million dollars, what are you going to do with those dollars to create comparable capability today? the answer is, you can't do it. it takes six years to build a destroyer to replace the

capability that the l.c.s. has today. and if you take that half a billion dollars and you put it in savings the question is where would you spend it today? mr. wittman: we see where the navy would like to spend it. they would like to spend almost half a billion dollars in fixing a building in hawaii, one of the pacific fleet command buildings. they would rather put $3 billion into climate change or for that matter invest $2 billion into a $15 an hour minimum wage. i would argue that getting rid of ships that have a capability that does have an impact to counter the chinese is what needs to be done today rather than waiting six years to build a ship that in some way, shape, or form could counter that, in turn trying to spend the dollars to repair a building, for climate change or for minimum wage increases. china is at our doorstep today. that's the threat we face today. my opposition to this is my opposition, why are we giving

away capability we need in the face of chinese capability that's at our doorstep? with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maine, m mr. golden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for two minutes. mr. golden. mr. golden: thank you, mr. speaker. talking about one of the previous amendments, i pointed out this was a bipartisan -- part of a bipartisan agreement. increase the topline by $37 billion. you know, compromise really requires people to set different priorities, come to the table, and find an agreement. many of us on the committee, on both sides of the aisle, really believe strongly, as does the navy, that we need a larger, more capable fleet force. you know, we have different priorities, and we talk about this a lot. for me we need more flight destroyers out there.

mr. gallagher getting new frigate ships out there. faster, great capability. i know mr. wittman works with mr. courtney on submarines and other things. he made a good point. giving up these capabilities without replacing them with other capabilities is a problem, but i also agree with the chairman that this is not a top priority program for the navy. i do have concerns that after just a short period of time they're seeking to shutter this program. it shows to me a problem with the navy in some of their new programs. we've seen this with other things that the ddg-1000 i think congress and our committee need to crack down with oversight of the navy. it is a shame to see these ships retired after so few years. i know there are allied nations that would like to mace use of them. -- make use of them. senator from maine talks about

repurposing these for drug interdiction in the southwestern hemisphere. we can't be scrapping these things. it's a lost investment and a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars. that being said, i like the chairman's amendment. it is seeking to make other important investments with the money. investing in these kmunition plants in the united states. putting more money towards the readiness of our navy force is an identified problem that we've agreed to in a bipartisan way, very necessary. we have, i think, pretty significant workforce readiness problems in the navy to man those ships. a good repurposing of the funds. with that i yield my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to my colleague, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. gallagher: i thank the gentleman from virginia.

i rise in opposition to the amendment. a few things that don't make sense to me. one, on a bipartisan basis in committee, we included report language in this year's bill that tasks the navy with reporting to us on how they can make the l.c.s. more combat capable in the indo-pacific. doing things from gearbox repairs, lethality upgrades, put an m.s.n. on these ships, make it into a very capable platform. why would we not allow them to come back with that plan as opposed to proactively cutting navy force structure? furthermore, my colleagues will argue the navy doesn't want these ships. well, the navy is cutting these ships as part of an investment to devest strategy because it has to budget that's far lower than what congress is set to resource. so with a higher topline, the navy can afford additional force structure. it's our job to exercise our

constitutional oversight responsibility and add the budget and force structure the navy needs. furthermore, the native's -- navy's shipbuilding plan that was presented to us was a joke. ok. the navy's proposing to bottom out the size of the fleet to 280 ships in 2027. the worst possible moment. when the window of maximum danger peaks in the pacific. we should not blindly accept that plan. we've been playing this lucy and charlie brown football game with the navy since i came into congress six years ago. i've run out of time. i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i'm prepared to close. i understand the gentleman over there has the right to ultimately close the debate. so i will reserve unless he is prepared to close. foip the gentleman reserves -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has one minute remaining. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford, one minute and 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rutherford: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the freedom class littorial ship, we've invested a lot. decommissioning them is complete financial malpractice. it takes away from important assets that can be used around the globe. this amendment would have a direct anything tiff impact on our national security. the chinese communist party plans to expand their fleet, which will reach 460 vessels by

2030. meanwhile, in the same time period, the u.s. will shinning to -- shrink to less than 300. these ships are not perfect, as mentioned earlier. no new class is. scrapping these ships at half their average life cycle is like throwing away a dime to save a nickel. the admiral said the fix isn't an exorbitant amount of money. so why is it worth scrapping them entirely, throwing away billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars? the push to decommission these ships are a misstep. they have missions in waters, making our country safer. helping the coast guard with drug interdiction to maritime security operations in centcom. a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against national security. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. in that time i'll attempt to make three quick points. number one, in response to mr. gallagher, as you well -- as he well knows the l.c.s. has no role in the counter-china fight. it has no capability in helping us deal with china. l.c.s. kant going to deal with it -- ain't going to deal with it. it wouldn't survive for two seconds in a fight against china. we all know that. the number of ships isn't the point. the capability of our overall systems. this takes the money out of this, put it into more munitions, which we need, and put more money into operations and maintenance for the department of navy which we desperately needs. this money is put in place that's vastly better. i'll come back to that first argument. the department of the nafky has

determined -- navy has determined they should not spend this money. build the capabilities. build the systems that can deal with the fight we face in china. the one thing you have to understand, the l.c.s. is 100% not it. we can spend this money better. this amendment does that. i urge support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i respect the chairman but he's wrong. this ship does have capability against china. it is capability that is operatable today. if you get rid of this ship you have nothing. and the replacement of this ship is six years aout. you can't fight something with nothing. getting rid of this ship is the wrong thing to do. it has its challenges. let's fix those challenges. let's get this ship operational. let's get it out there. we know it can do a job in a variety of different ways. even if it's not in the indo-pacific in a direct role,

it will free up ships in the indo-pacific to do their role. this is the wrong effort to retire these ships, all nine of these ships. let's make sure we stand by the agreement that we came to in the committee and go to the -- the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. the question is on the amendment. 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 virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. foster: mr. speaker, i have

an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. foster of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of my amendment to repeal the ndaa provision restricting u.s. funds to the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty organization, also known as the ctbto prep come. as the only physicist in congress, i feel it is important in maintaining u.s. leadership in this area. the preparatory commission is tasked with monitoring countries' compliance with a

comprehensive ban on nuclear explosive testing, including onsite inspections. before the prep comm funding ban went into place, u.s. experts regularly provided training to the prep comm international team of inspectors, worked with our international partners to continually refine the state-of-the-art methods used in these inspections. when the funding ban was enacted, it removed our ability to continue this work which resulted in russia, china, and even iran stepping in to fill the gap. their efforts may be more focused on dumbing down the capability of prep comm's verification regime instead of strengthening it under u.s. leadership. president trump recognized the importance of nonproliferation and of oversight into our adversaries' nuclear testing. he worked for years attempting to negotiate the dismantlement of north korea's nuclear weapons testing and development program. although it failed in the end, it was not a dumb thing to attempt.

if a final deal had been reached, onsite inspections by a trusted international team of technically competent inspectors would have been a key factor. and that is what prep comm is and what it should be under renewed u.s. leadership. as our nation fights against the unprovoked russian aggression in ukraine and china and russia's belligerence, getting the prep comm out from under our adversaries' control and back in our control has never been more important. as a nation, we must continue our efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and continue long standing commitments to our allies. mr. speaker, i urge passage of this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like -- at this time like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore:.

gentleman colorado is recognized -- the gentleman from colorado is recognized. larm lam i thank -- mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this amendment would require american taxpayers to provide money for a treaty that the u.s. is not even a party to. this is completely unnecessary. its -- it has been the bipartisan policy since the 1990's to not conduct a nuclear weapons test. if brought into force, the ctbt would codify this norm already adhered to by the united states. however, the treaty was already rejected by the u.s. senate as its adoption would undermine the future strength of our deterrent, would not halt proliferation, is not verifiable, and doesn't even define the term nuclear explosion. so the senate, on a bipartisan basis, has already rejected this treaty. this amendment does not make the world safer. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to prevent sending millions of american taxpayer dollars to an international organization that has the purpose of bringing into

force a treaty that's already been rejected by the united states senate. and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. cooper: thank you. i rise in strong support of the foster amendment. why? the average member of this -- to the average member this may sound complicated, but it's all about nuclear testing. we need to stop north korea and other nations from doing nuclear testing. and if they do, we need a trusted international source to monitor exactly what they are doing. it does not help us in america to be blind. and it does not help the house of representatives to blienldly follow -- blindly follow what the senate does, particularly senate inaction.

because the other body is notoriously unable to conduct its work. the important fact that members need to know is all of the heads of our national labs say that we do not need to test. they certify annually, the heads of sandia and los alamos and oak ridge, we do not need to test. and we need to stop other nations who are trying to test. this amendment helps us stop those other nations. this amendment helps us stop north korea. this amendment helps us stop other rogue nations and major powers like china and russia from testing. let's support the foster amendment and let's keep america strong. this is a very important principle for us to stand up for. i thank mr. foflter for offering up -- mr. foster for offering up this important amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time i yield a minute and a half to my friend and colleague from pennsylvania, general perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: i thank the ranking member for the opportunity. i think most important about this is it's already been said that we're not signatories to this treaty. and with all due respect to the gentleman regarding the house didn't follow the senate and we should do our own thing, i agree with that. but the senate is the one who ratifies treaties, not the house. but the bigger issue is that requiring rogue nations who are criminal actors, who don't honor their commitments, like north korea, like russia, and like china, to not do something on a piece of paper is not going to stop them. they don't honor anything that they sign anyhow and we'd be fools to think that they would. all this does, mr. speaker, among other things, all it does is tie america's hands behind its back. yes, we do certify currently burks we don't know what the future holds and we don't know what technology is, is going to be.

we should not tie america's national defense and national security behind her hands. for the sake of people and countries who refuse to honor the commitments they sign and we certainly shouldn't encumber hardworking tax paying citizens and their money to some international organization who does not have the best interests of the united states, the sovereignty of the united states, in mind. some global organization that somehow is going to tell us, because north korea signed a treaty, because russia signed a treaty, because china signed a treaty, that they're not going to violate it. ladies and gentlemen when they violate it, it -- ladies and gentlemen when they violate it, it might be -- ladies and gentlemen, when they violate it, it might be too late we don't have the time or luxury to hope they do the right thing. we absolutely must reject this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: i think i'll yield

myself such time as i may consume. i'd just like to, for the members on the other side, to ask themselves, assume that president trump had succeeded at his negotiations with the north koreans. that would have required a technically competent team of international inspectors there the day after the agreement to make sure that there was not testing and other weapons-related activities. this is why you keep the prep comalive and working and prep coma a-- prepcom alive and working and under u.s. leadership. it helps us deliver on the treaties that all of us hope may zay be passed to actually reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. until that time we have to have a competent team in place. they unfortunately have to be international, if they're going to be trusted by all sides on this. and that's why it's important to keep the prepcom as strong as we can and it has to be under our leadership. at this point i'll reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment would repeal what has been bipartisan consensus since 2018. the united states should not provide funding for bloated international organizations to help bring into force a treaty the senate has already rejected. this amendment would allow tens of millions of u.s. taxpayer dollars to be spent on conferences and junkets in the capitals of europe, to help resurrect a treaty that the u.s. senate has already rejected. let's be clear. this amendment has nothing to do with u.s. nuclear testing. since the early 1980's, every administration, both republican and democrat, has stated that we do not need to conduct underground nuclear testing. nothing has changed and this bill provides billions of dollars to ensure that it doesn't. my suggestion to the sponsor of this amendment is to -- if you really want to change the policy, go run for the senate. there you can attempt to resurrect the rotting corpse which is the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

with that, i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. the question is on the amendment. 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 alabama rise? mr. rogers: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in part a of house report 117-405.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm delighted by the last discussion and i hope that whatever eloquencey i might have would be useful in this regard. because we are now debating some of the most important and profound issues that will ever come before this congress, as it has in the past congresses and in the future congresses. and that is the role of nuclear

weapons in our lives. ladies and gentlemen, we are involved in a new nuclear arms race and this one is extremely expensive. but much more important, it is extremely dangerous. because this arms race is designed to provide weapons, delivery systems that are not observable. and observation systems that are totally unreliable in a conflict. basically, the satellite systems. and so this amendment deals with one part of the triad. that is the ground-based missiles, some 400 or so that are in silos in the northern midwest. those are the minuteman-3 silo missiles. they are armed, they are ready, and the president, should there be an incident that would cause him to make a decision about

launching those missiles, he has something less than 15 minutes, probably less than 12 minutes to make a decision to literally end life on this planet as we know. those are the lose it -- use it or lose it missiles. the minuteman-3. we have a proposal under way, a no-bid contract, worth about $125 billion over the next decade or so, to replace the current minuteman-3 missiles and, quite possibly, the nuclear weapons that are on those missiles. we don't need to do that. now, the minuteman iii missiles are viable for the next decade, almost the next two decades, if they are maintained. the air force made a decision some years ago, about seven years ago, to decide not to maintain them, but rather to build a new missile system that was then called the gbsd,

ground-based system. it's now called the sentinel. at a cost of about $125 billion in the next decade. this amendment simply pauses the development of that missile system, calls for the refurbishment and maintenance of the current minuteman iii missiles for the next decade and that the time a decision will be made by this congress and future congresses about what to do. it's simple. we've had a lot of talk in the last hour or two about unfunded priorities, we ought to fund this, we ought to fund that. i would suggest to you that we probably have somewhere in the range of $12 billion to $20 billion in the next couple of years and $120 billion in the next decade that we could easily spend on unfunded priorities or funded priorities. and so i would ask, with that i will pause will pause , as i would hope the icbm would

pause , as i would hope the icbm would , as i would hope the icbm would , as i would hope the icbm would pause and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance thegentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. this would prohibit funding for the w-871 nuclear life head, and try to extend the icbm's. we've heard time and again from u.s. air force, strat command g.a.o. that the minuteman i.c.b.m. -- icbm cannot be life extended. the parts don't exist and we need this new capability. this would also fly in the face of the decision made by president biden in his nuclear posture review to continue with retiring the minuteman iii and replacing it with the sentinel icbm. this was the same decision prusm and -- president trump and president obama came to when they were reviewing this data. adopting this amendment would also send a terrible signal to

our allies. allies around the world rely on the protection provided by the u.s. nuclear umbrella which reduces the incentive for those nations to pursue nuclear programs of their own. extending the nuclear guarantee underwrites the security of over 30 treaty allies, including nato, japan, australia and south korea. this amendment is akin to unilateral disarmament and would be a huge win for russia and china. i urge members to poe owe -- to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to my remaining time? the speaker pro tempore: a minute and a half. mr. garamendi: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield a minute and a half to my friend and colleague from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. it's premised on an extremely false assertion that the

minuteman icbm's can be safely extended. and this is simply not true. the commander of u.s. strategic command has said, quote, let me be very clear, you cannot extend the minuteman iii any longer, unquote. between disappearing sources for parts and the overall decay of the 60-year-old minuteman system, there's no room for error and for delay in ex tending any more -- extending any more. the engineering designs foeser -- designs for the minuteman don't exist or are six generations behind technologically from where we are today. in recent reliability flight tests, the minuteman iii has not proven to be reliable. in 2021 the air force aborted a flight test before it even initiated because the missile unexpectedly turned itself off. in 2018 the air force destroyed an unarmed minuteman iii in the middle of a flight test over the pacific because of a problem and in 2011 the air force destroyed an unarmed minuteman iii just after test launch due to a

malfunction. this is what you'd expect from an old and extremely unreliable system. and it's getting that way -- worse that way every year. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment that would recklessly bet on an old system at the expense of a modern system that we urgently need for our continued deterrence and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield a minute and half to my colleague from the armed services committee, general bacon from nebraska. mr. bacon: thank you. i stand in strong opposition to this amendment and the gaj it would do to our national security. a nuclear armed power just invaded its neighbor, a country that's modernized its icbm force. defunding the modernization of the land-based leg of our nuclear triad in this global environment should be unthinkable. here's the facts.

first, china is our pacing threat. it's on track to double its nuclear stockpile in the next decade. matching our icbm force. at that rate it may acquire the ability to force all of our sites in one wave. meanwhile, russia is rattling its already nuclearized sabres. defunding the icbm modernization at a time like this sends a terrible message. a terrible message to our to our allies and trust us with a nuclear umbrellas and secondly, our military leaders to delay modernization of our try add. d.m. anand: life, design life span of three years. and but they become far more expensive to maintain than replace. but it pales in comparison to a

catastrophic consequence. the new technologies is likely to end the vulnerability offer submarines and threaten our bombers to be strike. they are ready to strike. this -- with that, i yield -- i recommend that we vote no on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from california is recognized. >> the gentleman from alabama prepared to close? >> i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.garamendi: i reserve so i have the opportunity to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has the right to close.

mr.garamendi: with that, let's deal with two things, first with the regard to the minuteman three to be the serviceable for the next 17 years. in fact, it has to be for the g.b.s. to be put in place. all of the sentinels and will arrive year by year next 17 years. and will be maintained for that period of time. so it's not true that they cannot be maintained. they, in fact, will be. secondly, we are talking about deterrents or dominance? do we have to have more to deter or do we have a good deterrents in the next decade with minute man 3 and the submarines and the aircraft and the bombers, both of many different designs. the tact of the matter is we

have sufficient deterrents. we don't need to deter and we have other priorities. so, the issue for us, it seems to me is, should we delay for a decade the development and placement of the minute man 3 replacement, that is the sentinel. and we have other things to do and other priorities and we will be quite safe enough to have deterrents. with regard to the 87-1 and can't be developed in the near term. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i will say this, he is persistent. i hope this year, this amendment

guts a decade and a half. it would and undermine our alliancees and opposed by the pentagon and i urge my members to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-c of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to rule 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in part a of house report 117-405.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report 117-405 offered by mrs. lee of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan, ms. tlaib and a.m. member opposed each will control 20 minutes. ms. tlaib: i would like to thank chairman smith and chairman mcgovern for working with me on this important amendment and for their leadership for this process and thank congresswoman jacobs and support for the important policy change. with russia's war in ukraine and

serious tension in the southern china sea today's world is being redefined between major nuclear powers. we don't have to look back far in history to see that there is danger here. the cold war was full of near misses that could have gotten out of control and ended in nuclear war. we are entering nuclear competition. we must remember one of the key lessons in the cold war that taught us that nuclear weapons, that we must preserve the ability -- step back and clearly signal de-escalation when necessary. the current draft includes a draft that prohibits and makes it impossible to reduce the stockpiles of icb mmp's the

policy was created in implemented by lawmakers in promotion of company to profiter in production of these weapons, not in the best interest. the short sight he hadness places restraints on presidents, congress and the department of defense to consider and modify the role of ic bmp mmp's. preserving this proves key to reducing tension and achieving peaceful solutions and arms control agreements. just as we have the ability to increase nuclear defense, we must have the reduce nuclear forces. to be clear, this amendment does not containing the size of our nuclear forces but allows for consideration and debate in the

future. as a mother of two who dreams of a world where my boys and the many of the children can lead lives free from the threat of nuclear war, support this. and i yield. mr. rogers: i rise in strong opposition of this amendment. this amendment would repeal what was inserted in the nd arch arch d.m. anand: this is the minimum says it needs. that is how we got that number by trusting our military commanders. china is filling fields at an unprecedented rate. russia has a new ic bmp m and whether the u.s. should maintain. the debate is simple if you

support going lower than they say, then you should support the tlaib amendment and if you think 400 is the right number, them you should oppose the amendment. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. ms. tlaib: this amendment does not containing the size of our nuclear forces but more options to end towards nuclear war. nuclear confrontation is what we hold dear and risks the end of the world. we need more options for those in power. i urge my colleagues to understand what is at stake and remind my colleagues that is important to give the president of the united states as well as the department of defense to

de-escalate when necessary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time mr. rogers: i yield a minute and a half to mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. lamborn: i rise in opposition to this amendment and could ground-based. as russia continues its invasion of ukraine and china engages in a massive nuclear buildup this is the worst time to consider a weakening. keeping section 1636 in the nuclear threats to our coup try and allies. this amendment is even out of line with the bide yep's administration and its emphasis. this would mark the beginning of a slippery slope towards reducing our arsenal.

congress and the biden administration have rejected this concept. when it comes to this, our deterrents is enhanced because russia and china must have these exaibts as they posture nuclear forces. this deters nuclear escalation and is stabling ising. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. one minute remaining. ms. tlaib: can i yield 45 seconds to mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.garamendi: nobody is really said we need 400. that's never been said we need 400. maybe we need 399.

maybe we need less than that, but the fact is we have adequate deterrents without these particular very, very dangerous missiles because they have to be used immediately on threat. 12 minutes. the president has to make a decision. otherwise -- here's the point. if we want to have more than they have, that doapts increase the deterrents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. ms. tlaib: it is important to understand that this amendment merely allows for reasonable consideration and the debate in the future in regards to our icb mmp's. that's all we are asking for and it is important for allowing that debate and public

transparency and de-escalation and time of this is important. i yield back. mr. rogers: i would like to yield a minute and a half admiral jackson of texas. mr. jackson: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment. it would cripple our nuclear deterrent as china, russian yeah and iran, the house armed services has worked to ensure that the u.s. military can compete and win in a future conflict. and there are icbm's because military leadership has told us that 400 is the bare minimum number to deter russia and china. this number wasn't pulled out of thin air. the reality the current fleet is not enough.

this year's nmp dmp arch arch took steps to invest in modernization and our skilled work force and infrastructure. we need to listen to our military leadership and provide these investments to modernize. this amendment runs counter. for these reasons, i urge everyone to oppose this far-left amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: this will amendment would repeal the statutory requirement that would completely undermine our strategic deterrent and i yield back pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by gentlelady michigan. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to -- >> i ask for the yeas and nays pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to house resolution 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, and a member opposed will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: this amendment would give the district of columbia mayor control over the d.c. national guard. congresswoman maloney and congressman anthony brown are co-leads of this amendment. the governors of the states and territories control their national guards, while the president controls the d.c. national guard. this amendment would give the d.c. mayor the same control over the d.c. national guard that the governors of the states and territories have over their national guards. the president would have the same authority to federalize the d.c. national guard that the president has to federalize the national guards of the states and territories. the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6, 2021, and the

events at laugh yacht square on june -- lafayette square on june 1, 2020, is a prime example of why the d.c. mayor should control the d.c. national guard. during january 6, the trump administration delayed deploying the d.c. national guard to the capitol for several hours, likely costing lives and prolonging the attack. and lafayette square, the trump administration used the d.c. national guard to forcibly remove peaceful protesters for a president photo op. national guards are generally deployed for natural disasters and civil disturbances. the d.c. mayor, who knows d.c. better than any federal official, should be able to deploy the d.c. national guard to protect d.c. residents. in the event of a large scale attack on a federal facility in d.c., the d.c. mayor would almost certainly deploy the d.c. national guard to protect the facility. however, in the unlikely event

that the d.c. mayor did not do so, the president would have the authority to federalize and deploy the d.c. national guard to do so. this is no different from the division of authority today between a governor and the president, in the event of a large scale attack on a federal facility in a state or territory. moreover, presidential control over the d.c. national guard creates a loophole in an act which limits the military's involvement in civil law enforcement. the department of justice's office of legal counsel has opined that when the d.c. national guard is operating for nonfederal purposes, even though it is an exclusively federal entity, it may be used for civilian law enforcement without violating the act. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which would be a historic advance in d.c. self-government and improve

safety in the nation's capital. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the amendment would inject the d.c. mayor into the title 32 chain of command. as a result, the president would be required to ask for the consent of the mayor to employ the d.c. guard for federal missions, not only would this set a harmful precedent for command and control of the national guard units, below the level of a governor, it would create a series of dilemmas in the event that the d.c. mayor and the president disagree on the employment of the guard. for example, if the mayor declined to give consent, the president would have to order members of the d.c. guard to active duty, request the consent of a governor to deploy members of the guard units to d.c., or deploy active duty service members to d.c. mr. gallagher: all of these options would come at their own distinct tradeoffs and potential

for delay in the event of a crisis, giving the d.c. mayor authority over the national guard would only delay response time and create new areas of friction that we don't need. it's not hard to see why members of the armed services committee rejected this amendment on a bipartisan basis during markup last month. so i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: the gentleman fails to understand that the deployment of the d.c. national guard would have to take place no matter who controls the national guard. whether it's president -- whether the president or the mayor. the mayor controls the national guard, she'd have to deploy it, she'd have to make sure the national guard is ready to proceed. so the gentleman's objection would have no merit. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. gallagher: i yield three

minutes to mr. clyde, the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. clyde clyde thank you -- mr. clyde: thank you, to my colleague f from wisconsin, for yielding. i rise in very strong opposition to amendment number 25, which would place the mayor of the district of columbia in charge of the d.c. national guard. i can't believe this even has to be said. but the d.c. mayor is not the governor of a state and the district of columbia, which houses or first of all government, is -- federal government, is not and should never become a state. under current law, the president of the united states, our nation's commander in chief, is the authority over the d.c. national guard and also appoints its commissioned officers. the president has held that authority for more than two centuries, since the inception of the d.c. national guard under president thomas jefferson in 1802. the president has delegated the authority to deploy the d.c. national guard to the secretary of defense who has further delegated that authority to the secretary of the army. these are federal officials

accountable to the president of the united states. but under this amendment, the d.c. mayor, not the president, would be in charge of the d.c. national guard. including deployments and appointing its commissioned officers. so the president would be stripped of his role entirely. think about it. taking the authority from the president and giving it to a mayor. never. that is completely unacceptable. the d.c. mayor must not have equal authorities as governors of states and territories have, over their national guards, because the d.c. mayor's not a governor. and the district of columbia is a federal district. not a state. or a territory. in addition, the current mayor has previously attempted to use the d.c. national guard for political purposes, calling for their withdrawal from the district during the summer riots of 2020, and seeking to significantly limit the d.c. national guard's role to traffic control duties only prior to the january 6 riot at the u.s. capitol. this further demonstrates that

the d.c. mayor should play no role in the deployment of the d.c. national guard troops. again, the district of columbia is a federal district and is not a state and the constitution directs that it should never be a state. the district of columbia's a federal district with substantial federal concerns and facilities. the president of the united states should control the d.c. national guard, not an office whose resident has already demonstrated a lack of judgment when it comes to the use of the d.c. national guard. and simply the filing of this amendment is another example of why it is time to roll back home rule and return management of the city to congress, as stipulated by the constitution. article 1, section 8 starts with, the congress shall have power, and in clause 17 it states, and i quote, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district. that's our constitution. that's what we abide by. i urge my colleagues to oppose

this amendment and i yield back to my colleague from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i remind the gentleman that this house has twice passed the d.c. statehood bill and the bill that i have put before you would give the president the same authority to federalize the d.c. national guard that the president has to federalize the national guards of the states and territories. so it would pose no issue for deployment of the national guard. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. gallagher: i'm prepared to close if the gentlelady is. the fact that the house in partisan fashion has passed the d.c. statehood bill i think has no bearing on this because of

course according to the constitution there's another chamber that would have to weigh in in order for the bill to become a law. until such a time as that becomes a reality, this amendment makes no sense and puts that very big cart before the horse, as my colleague from georgia so eloquently reminded us, we should be in the business of adhering to the constitution, not seeking to create end runs around it. furthermore, the gentlelady's earlier objection that we already have a process for consultation and therefore my objections are unwarranted ignores the basic fact that with this amendment we're setting a new precedent as the gentleman from georgia clearly laid out, we are lowering the bar below the level of governor and effectively giving a mayor the authorities that a governor has right now. that's not the same consultation process that exists at present. that is a new glitch in the matrix. one that should be avoided right now. so i maintain my strong

opposition to this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized to close. ms. norton: mr. speaker, nothing more than what we saw on january 6 educates us to why it is important for the mayor of the district of columbia to have control of the national guard. that period during which the national guard was held up because the mayor had no control accounted for much of the problems that we're still fighting that came out of january 6. and i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 29 offered by ms. sanchez of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. m ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment which would require the department of defense and the v.a. take steps to investigate and mitigate the spread of disinformation within their ranks. bad actors are taking advantage of new technologies to effectively manipulate the public, spreading false information faster and further than ever before. extremists are trying to blur the lines between fact and fiction which undermines confidence in reliable sources of information. the result is more polarization and less trust in our government. this ultimately makes it easier for violent groups to recruit individuals, including service members and veterans to their causes. we saw the devastating effects of disinformation in this very chamber on january 6 of 2021. i will never forget setting --

sitting on the floor of my office in the dark, a baseball bat in my hand, hoping that i would live to see my son grow up. insurrectionists motivated by disinformation stormed the heart of american democracy. over 80 of those charged in relation to january 6 had some form of military service. america's military's not immune to the rising tide of extremism. nor is it immune to disinformation and conspiracy theories. experts have shown that extremist groups target active military and veterans for recruitment and we must act before it is too late. we must remain vij lentd -- vigilant to the weaponnization that aims to polarize our society, create division and damage trust in our institutions. if left unchecked, the reckless spread of disinformation poses an existential threat to our democracy. i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and i underlying package. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i'm opposed to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment offers vague language about the d.o.d., how the d.o.d. and v.a. should plan to address the spread of so-called disinformation in d.o.d. and veteran communities. it defines it includes anything to the good order and discipline related to vaccinations. supporters of this amendment should think long and hard about what behavior they think should be investigated and criminalized, implying all who question all who disagree with covid is with disinformation is an absurd view of reality. i find it insulting. we should not support campaigns

on loose concepts. i urge members to oppose the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: i yield one minute to my colleague, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i am proud to support this amendment. maligned disinformation. within the military, and a survey found 36% have witnessed white nationalism or i'd owling racism within recent months. a 12% increase. this isn't about vaccinations but extremism and racism. this is more common among enlisted members and 53

experienced sole extreme ideology. this is to metropolitanned through misand disinformation. we need to work and our military needs to engage globally and have a view of the reality and when russia intentionally engages in disinformation. we captain let our troops be susceptible. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back to the the gentlewoman from california. ms. sanchez: i reserve. ism the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has the right to close.

the gentleman is recognized ms. sanchez: this amendment asks for a report evaluating the spread of disinformation within the military ranks and how that can be mitigated thvment means protecting them from exploitation by bad actors such as russian controls. disinformation and propose gappedda not only create and exploit vulnerabilities and this is a direct threat to our national security because it undermines trust and confidence within the ranks. we must do more to reach out to all members of society especially those who are most vol nearly to propaganda. this requires it. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying package and those who choose in the face of what we

see that disinformation and misinformation and those who ignore it and not prepare for it are contributing to the potential violence. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: this amendment is insulting to servicemembers and i urge members to oppose it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 1224, previous question is offered on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to -- the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: yainsd.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in part c of house report 117-405 offered by mr. schneider of illinois pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. schneider: i allot myself such time as i may consume. in september of 2020, f.b.i. wray testified to congress

stated that the greatest threat to the homeland were home actors radicalized online and talk about extremists. and the fact of the matter is that we are seeing an increase and domestic violence. in charlottesville ville, we are seeing increase in our communities. no community is free from it and no segment of our society is immune from the threat. in may of this year, unclassified presentation by the defense counter timings titled the insider threat within the d.o.d., defense agency laid out the clear presentation defining

what is extremism and the stages of development, highlighted seven cases of extremism in active duty and former duty servicemembers and what they can can take, early intervention, communication. this amendment, my amendment would require the department of defense, the f.b.i. and department ofhomeland security to report on extremism or threats of extremism within our military or within our uniformed services, threats of white sprem isist that could be a threat not within the service but those who have been separated. and them the amendment requires the agencies to require a plan to prevent those plans.

such extremism is a threat to us. there is no reason to believe that our military is any different. these are exceptions and they are rare, but we must do everything we can to identify them and thwart them before they become a reality. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. biggs: biggs this amendment attempts to create a problem where none exists where investigations into law enforcement and for white supreme isists. proponents suggest that members of the armed services have sympathies to white nationalist groups. these same pro opponents the

various offered examples. this amendment denigrates our men and women in the service and/or wellian in. >> this amendment denigrates the many fine members of people who serve in our military service. but we have had service and this is from mass casualty attack. uniformed officer killing fellow soldiers and threats against religious communities and communications and bomb making instructions and material support to terrorists. these are not made up examples. they are exceptional. they are rare. but it is incredit apply

important that we identify these threats before they become incidents before lives are lost. we need to make sure we are getting this information and something we can do it together and do it in a bipartisan way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: every member of the military who showed an interest or actual participation in a white supreme isist has faced discipline. they either demoted the individual, discharged them. further, the armed services have taken steps to address these steps going back to the 1980's. at a time when it is difficult to recruit, democrats should be implying and neo-nazis. we have lost recently tens of

thousands forced out of military service due to the vaccine mandate. we are way below in our recruiting levels. this type of ma lig nancy and amputation of bad conduct in a generic form, actually would make it harder to recruit. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. schneider: i'm ready to close. i have the privilege of representing great lakes. every single recruit whether they enlist in california, carolinas comes to naval station for training and i had

privileged of speaking to them. i see the exceptional character of all the people that go through. men and women who put on the uniform to defend our nation is the best. i'm exceedingly proud of them. the presence of even one person embracing extremism, hatred denigrates our entire military forces. our forces represent us as a nation and this amendment doesn't denigrate but celebrates our armed forces by asking our armed forces and uniformed forces to report to congress and looks to us as representatives to do our job in oversight making sure they have the resources they need to make sure that everyone in the military have the best resources.

this is a celebration than i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: when you big to study in a broad basis very broad implications take place, the urging that an analysis be done regarding the white supremacist in our uniformed imputes and implies that it is present in a wide spreed fashion. that denigrates those officers. if we are going to say they are the best that this country has to offer, let's treat them like the best. when there has been problems, these services have addressed it. we don't need this denigrating study and i close and yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 1224, previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. 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 arizona rise? mr. biggs: request the yeas and nays. >> pursuant to house resolution, pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york, miss rice, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mr. rice: rye my amendment will ensure -- miss rice: in response to the ongoing threat of domestic violence -- violent extremism, section 5602 of the fiscal year 2020 ndaa, which passed this house in 2019, and was signed into law by president trump, mandated that d.h.s. and f.b.i. issue an annual report to congress with a strategic intelligence assessment of domestic terrorism in the united

states. this report is required to include information on domestic extremist incidents, investigations and prosecutions, as well as an assessment of how law enforcement intelligence, personnel and resources are deployed to meet the domestic terror threat. this is essential information for congress as we continue our work to understand and counter domestic terror and the threat it poses to our democracy and the rule of law. unfortunately d.h.s. and f.b.i. have struggled to comply with this mandate in a timely and sufficient manner. the first strategic intelligence assessment and data on domestic terrorism report was 10 months late and it included incomplete and insufficient information that failed to meet the requirements laid out in the law. a second annual report has not yet been released, though it is well past its due date. my amendment is very simple. it gives d.h.s. and f.b.i. the opportunity to report to congress on what processes or

resources they need to comply with this reporting requirement. if they need more resources, better data or anything else, we in congress can give it to them. but these reports are too important to our work for us not to receive them in a timely and complete manner. i urge support for this commonsense amendment, to ensure that we give our agencies the tools they need to give us the best intelligence and information. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you. mr. chairman, taking cues from president biden and attorney general garland this amendment is just another attempt by democrats to shamelessly politicize domestic terrorism. in a memorandum dated october 24, 2021, attorney general garland directed the f.b.i. and

all u.s. attorneys' offices to address the, quote, disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence, closed quote, at school board meetings. mr. biggs: although the attorney general's memorandum did not specifically mention domestic terrorism, the justice department's press release accompanying the memorandum noted the involvement of the national security division. a whistleblower alerted the judicial committee that the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism division has been responsible for implementing the attorney general's directive and that the f.b.i. has created a unique threat tag to track investigations against parents. and we know from other whistleblowers that the f.b.i. has opened dozens of investigations into parents as a result of attorney general garland's memorandum, including one to a mother who was merely part of a group called moms for liberty. the attorney general's memorandum was the product of a letter from the national school board association to president biden. that letter triggered the

attorney general's memorandum which equated parents with domestic terrorists and urged the biden administration to use federal authorities, including the patriot act, to target parents who happened to show up at school boards. that's how lucy -- loosey-goosey the term domestic terrorism is. it's not defined clearly anywhere. it's fluid. we know from publicly available information that the biden white house knew the nsba would encourage use of the patriot act and never push back. instead president biden called up the head of the nsba and invited her to the oval office. that's just one reason to oppose this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. miss rice: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized to close. mr. biggs: thank you. mr. chairman, the justice department is not alone in abusing domestic terrorism

powers. on february 7, 2022, d.h.s. issued a national terrorism advisory bulletin warning that the united states remains in a heightened threat and citing so-called mis, dis and malinformation as a source of increased threat environment. does that sound like they've got that nailed down, how it's defineed? according to d.h.s., the purpose of allegedly misleading narratives and conspiracy theories is to increase societal friction and undermine public trust in governmental institutions. it cited two examples. quote, online proliferation and false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and covid-19, closed quote. that used to be called free speech. although d.h.s. has admitted that conditions underlining the heightened threat landscape hasn't changed over the last year, it cited the proliferation of false or misleading narratives which sow discord or undermine public trust in

government institutions as a factor in why it remains elevated. the bulletin itself is further evidence of how the biden administration has used existing counterterrorism resources as a tool to target and silence citizens who disagree with government actions. if you have a heterodox point of view from the biden left stream orthodoxy, they consider you a domestic terrorist. we should not be further enabling these actions. i urge a no vote on this amendment and, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized to close. miss rice: mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. the question is on the amendment. 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 arizona seek recognition? mr. biggs: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33, printed in house -- in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. aguilar: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 33 offered by mr. aguilar of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. i mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer this amendment. if the fiscal year 2020 ndaa, i first requested a study from the department of defense on how the department can best screen and prevent extremists from enlisting in our military using existing f.b.i. and d.o.j. resources. the resulting report published in october of 2020 found that white nationalists and domestic extremists target service members as prized recruits, their words, for their groups. and shared accounts of service members with active ties to these organizations. the report also included a list of seven recommendations on steps the department can take to prevent domestic extremists from enlisting in the military. under the leadership of secretary austin, the department has taken additional steps to combat extremism in the military. this included a 60-day standdown and the creation of the countering extremist activity working group.

to better understand the threat and offer six additional recommendations. my amendment supports the department's efforts to counter domestic extremism. it simply requests a formal update from the department on the steps it has taken to complete the recommendations from the october, 2020, report. and it directs the department to complete the recommendations from the december, 2021, report within six months of enactment of this bill. this bill does not impose new requirements on the department, but ensures congressional oversight of tackling the critical issue for our national security. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment lays the growntdwork for massive -- groundwork for massive new monitoring programs in the name of preventing extremism. the amendment would implement verbatim the recommendations of

d.o.d. bureaucrats and political appointees who wrote the two reports. these reports, which are shoddy and devoid of actual data, recommend massive expansions of so-called vetting of the d.o.d. civilians and service members. these recommendations if implemented lay the groundwork for new social media and online activity monitoring, new screening questions about group and political affiliations and so-called behavioral analysis. the amendment is so poorly drafted that it may require d.o.d. to share information about extremist activity in the d.o.d. with foreign countries. it doesn't prohibit the sharing of service member information or include any mention of privacy protections. we can't even say for sure what the amendment will do. it asks d.o.d. to pick six recommendations from a list of 27 policy ideas. there is a reason we don't implement departmental reports as law without due consideration. the options range from updating a power point to collecting service members' social media data, to extremism databases.

this amendment is an abdication of legislative responsibility and will likely lead to massive civil liberties infringements at the d.o.d. i strongly urge its rejection and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. aguilar: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized to close. mr. aguilar: mr. chairman, this bill does not impose new regulations. these are existing tools that the f.b.i. and the d.o.d. already uses. what this bill seeks to do, this is about protecting the integrity of our armed forces. and making sure that extremists don't become enlisted individuals. this is about protecting the service. i appreciate the ranking member's comments, but this is about ensuring accountability. this is about ensuring congressional oversight. ensuring that we protect and prepare the individuals who are

entrusted to serve this country. as a co-equal branch, it's important for tong to remain in-- for congress to remain informed on the actions and this is not a unique step to conduct this type of oversight. i'd urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized to close. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment undermines important crimes statistics designed -- i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. the question is on the amendment. 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 arizona rise? mr. biggs: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays

are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 precipitationed in part a of house report -- printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mr. torres: madam speaker, -- mrs. torres: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 48 offered by mrs. torres of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. torres, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. mr. torres: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment to have transparency and accountability over american

taxpayer money sent abroad. i am proud to be supported by chair castro, chair sires and the house foreign affairs committee, as well as representatives escobar, vargas, jacobs, malinowski and levin. support from members on both the armed services and the foreign affairs committees is a reminder that our national security relies on both the state and defense departments. this amendment provides additional oversight over section 333 funding in the northern triangle region of central america. section 333 gives the department of defense authority to conduct or support programs providing training and equipment to the national security forces of foreign countries. unfortunately we have seen numerous instances of abuse and misuse of defense equipment provided to foreign governments, in particular in central

america. this includes using u.s.-provided equipment to repress local people and perpetuate human rights violations and in some instances u.s. materials have been used against our own u.s. personnel in the area. let me be clear. u.s.-funded equipment in the northern u.s. funded equipment in the try angle area of central america has been used against our u.s. personnel working in the region. sadly we can't brush off those disturbing instances as being far in the past. these problems continue to happen. this year, we have seen civil society actors, journalists and independent prosecutors and judges under attack in bothel salvador and guatemala. in just the last few months, the president of el salvador declared a state of exception

that bypasses citizens' rights and exempts security funding from regular oversight. and in guatemala we have seen a concerted effort to stamp out the independent judiciary with those who dared to speak truth to power, threaten, put in jail, or force to flee in fear of their lives. the northern triangle region is at a pivotal moment and in the united states, we must support efforts to build stable and prosperous communities to contribute to a more stable sems fear and address the root causes of migration. to that end, this amendment would require public disclosure of our section 333 aid to the northern triangle reto create greater transparency of how and when we support these governments. this amendment, mr. speaker, would also require the secretary of state in coordination with the secretary of defense to certify to congress that the

governments of guatemala, el salvador and honduras are credibly investigating and prosecuting their members of the military implicated in human rights violations before sending additional section 333 funding to those organizations. to my republican colleagues, i want to clarify that this amendment does not end section 333 assistance, but it does -- it does not tell the department who it can partner with. it simply says the governments need to be taking steps to investigate members of their military who have been credibly accused of human rights violations and congress needs insight into these efforts. the american taxpayer and the communities of the northern triangle deserve dignity and accountability. many here know my strategy for guatemala, el salvador and honduras. number one, to hold the co-rapt,

undemocratic actors who are working against our interests accountable. help those fighting for accountability, fairness and democracy in the region, and to ensure that our assistance reaches the people it is intended to help. this amendment will help us do just that. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and with that, i reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. ronellers: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment makes unnecessary cheeks 333 security cooperation reporting requirements and places needless certification on programs within the northern try angle. the additional reporting requirements are burdensome and requiring additional certification for northern triangle countries is entirely misplaced and not something done for any group of countries for security cooperation programs.

it's critically important to maintain, not turn our backs on, partners in the southcom regions. turning our backs on partners only creates a vacuum for china and russia to gain a greater foothold in the region. i urge my colleagues to vote no and reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. torres: this certification process does not end section 333 funding to the northern triangle. it brings accountability and transparency on how u.s. equipment is being used in the region. with that, i request a yes vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized to close. mr. rogers: thank you. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from

california, ms. kim. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. kim: thank you for yielding. this amendment would negatively impact our ability to address the profound security conditions in central america's northern triangle countries. as we know, el salvador, guatemala and honduras are leading source countries of illegal immigration to the united states. under this administration, the migration crisis at the u.s.' southern border has reached the highest levels in recorded history. u.s. customs and border protections are overworked, underfunded, and demoralized. they also lack the tools and resource to address america's growing fentanyl crisis, now the leading cause of death for americans 18 through 45. border agents are outmaneuvered by well-resourced criminal groups in human traffic -- and human traffickers who exploit the conditions in the region. in addition to needing

collective border enforcement to address this crisis, we need a comprehensive approach to the root causes of migration. this amendment would diminish the department of defense's ability to contribute to those efforts. this amendment would also undermine what it seeks to achieve by impeding existing defense cooperation programs grounded in promoting and improving human rights standards. it is also duplicative. it's wasteful. as extensive vetting on recipient forces is already extensively conducted. in addition, much like the cuts in 2018, any additional suspensions of assistance to the northern triangle will worsen the security situation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized to close. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment weakens our partnerships in the southcom region and helps china to

continue their malign efforts. i urge it be rejected in a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. the question is on the amendment. 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 alabama rise? mr. biggs: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 7900 is postponed.

proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. number one, motions to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7174 and h.r. 5274, number two, passage of h.r. 6538, number three, the motion to commit senate 3373, number four, the passage of senate 3373, if ordered, and number five, the following amendments to h.r. 7900, amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25,

29, 31, and 32. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7174 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 287, h.r. 7174. a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to re-authorize the national

computer forensics institute of the united states secret service and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by the following members, mccormick of florida and brown of maryland, they vote yes on h.r. 2174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote yea on h.r. 7174. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. hartzler from missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. soto, ms. jayapal, mr. castro and ms. porter, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lieu of california, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote aye on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. armstrong: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. timmons from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. bentz of oregon, i inform the house that congressman bentz will vote aye on h.r. 7178.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members barragan, cardenas, speier, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. doggett of texas, mr. panetta of california and ms. moore of wisconsin, i inform the house that these three members will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member

designated by mr. molton of massachusetts -- mr. moulton of massachusetts, mrs. trahan of massachusetts, and mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz and mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by congresswoman beatty and congresswoman williams, i inform the house that they will vote yes on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote yea on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas, and ms. leger fernandez, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, i inform the house that chairwoman johnson will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. ryan of ohio, ms. newman of illinois, mr. cohen of tennessee, i inform the house that these three members will vote yes on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be voting yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. albio sires are, mr. bill pascrell, ms. ann kirkpatrick,

and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7174. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote yea on h.r. 7174.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 4 10e, the nays are 16. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the speaker: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise with my colleagues from illinois to pleas the memories of seven precious people who were murdered at our independence day parade. the residents of highland are honoring. katherine goldstein, kevin mccarthy, stephen straus. and there are no words to describe the heartbreak of our community, the grief and also the anger. these beautiful people were the center of the universe. and loving parents and grand parents, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters and personal interests and diverse

interests and all loved life. each one had a special spark that will burn bright with the people who knew and loved them and standing and honoring them d.m. anand: what was said at one of the funerals, we should not have to be here. yet here we are giving moments of silence time and time and time again. every day in communities across america we lose 111 lives to gun violence. today, we unite and stand with highland park as they mourn. tomorrow, we need to stand up and work together. i ask now that my colleagues join the illinois delegation and before we lift our head and

reflect on the those who have lost their lives. the speaker: i ask members and staff throughout the capitol to rise in remembrance of the july 4 shooting in highland park, illinois.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell to suspend the rules and pass 5274 on which the yeas and nays are ordered were ordered. the clerk: h.r. 5274, a bill toll amend homeland security act of 2002 to provide training for

u.s. customs and borders to prevent secondary exposure to fept nil and for other purposes. ism the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. beyer: as the member designated by mr. comb men, mr. newman, mr. and these members will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> as the member designated by mr.~wilson of south carolina, he will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. bill pascrell

and mrs. kirkpatrick, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives mccormick and brown, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by i inform the house that mr. vince will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition sm >> as the member designated by i inform the house mr. crist ms. wasserman schultz, they will vote yes

>> as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, he will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house he will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does swrasm indiana seek recognition? >> mrs. walorski, she will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> as the memberdesignated byes i'm here to vote in purpose. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pappas, ms. pingree and ms. leger fernandez, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yes. >> as the member designated by ms. tray han and mr. moulton and mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. issa of california, mr. issa will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter and these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota. >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote yes. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by bar began, cardenas, speier, these members will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, he will be voting yes on h.r. 52774. are as the member designated by mr. katko will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by i inform the house that she will vote yes on h.r. 5274. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the state of texas, mr. taylor will vote yes on h.r. 5274.

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote -- this the yeas are 429 and nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider. pursuant to clause 8, unfinished is passage on which the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 290, a bill to create an active shooter alert communications network and for other purposes. it. the question is on passage of the bill. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: as the member

designated by ms. moore, ms. new man, mr. doggett, mr. cohen -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. beyer: these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by the following members, brown of maryland, mccormick of florida will vote yes on h.r. 2638. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist ms. what ther man schultz, they will vote yes.

>> as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote yes on h.r. 3568. the speaker pro tempore: as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. new man and mr. ryan, mr. lieu, mr. doggett, mr. cohen and mr. panetta, they will vote yes on h.r. 6538. >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote no. . mr. pallone: -- mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. sires, ms. app kirkpatrick, and mr. peter defazio, i inform

the house that these members will vote yea on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar, i inform the house that she will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, mrs. trahan of massachusetts and ms. -- of michigan, i inform the house that they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote no on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. leger fernandez, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on h.r.

6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. jayapal, mr. soto, mr. castro, ms. porter, i inform the house that these four members will vote yea on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on h.r. 5638. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. bay di-- beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote yea on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman eddie behr necessary johnson, i inform the house that

she will vote yea on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. moon nee will vote no on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members barragan, cardenas, speier, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote nay on h.r. 6538. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek remember in addition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be voting on h.r. 6538.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on h.r. 6538.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 269, the nays are 169, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is on agreeing to the motion to commit of s. 3373 offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. best, on which -- mr. bost on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: motion to recommit offered by mr. bost to the bill senate 3373. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to commit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by ms. moore, mr. panetta, mr. doggett, mr. ryan, mr. cohen, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler of missouri will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, i inform the house that she will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by following members, brown of maryland, no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i

inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. albio sires, mr. bill pascrell, ms. ann kirkpatrick and mr. peter defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by cliff bentz, i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote aye on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, mrs. trahan of massachusetts and

mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote aye on the motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. leger fernandez, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote yea on the motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members barragan, cardenas, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote no on the motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter, ms. jayapal, mr. castro, and mre that these four members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yea on the motion to co commit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be voting yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform

the house that mr. fallon will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote yea on the motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek are exrecognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that these members will vote nay on the motion to commit.

>> the motion to send the bill that would expand access to health care and disability benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances and burn pits during the military service. after this vote, we expect a vote on final passage and then we are looking at a number of amendment votes on the policy bill.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 208, the nays are 219,. the motion is not adopt. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill -- the gentleman from illinois. >> request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida and ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on s. 337, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa, mr. issa will vote yes

oh, yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan. >> mr. moulton of massachusetts and these members will vote we yes on s.3733. >> smeght pursuant to house resolution mr. advance will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by + moore, mr. doggett, mr. ryan, mr. lewan mr. panetta. they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> fogs that mr. tom rice will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition?

>> brown of maryland and mccormick of florida, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska. mr. bacon: as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by the following congress members, bar began, kahele and peters, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon, i inform the house that he will vote yes. >> as the member designated by ms. pingree and mr. pandemic as, i inform the house that these hems will vote yes on s.337 #.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, that mr. timmons will vote no on s.3373. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. katko, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote no. mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. sir ease, and mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. dephases ," these members will vote yes on s.3373. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr.~wilson, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> smeghtd mr. reschenthaler, he will be voting yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> negd ms. jayapal, mr. porter and these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, she will vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, she will vote yes. >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski, she will vote yes on s.337 #. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. babin: as the member designated by mr. taylor of state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on s.3373.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 342 and nays are 88.

bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. further consideration of h.r. 7900 will now resume. the clerk: union call ep dar 305, h.r. 3900 a bill to authorize appropriations for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction and for fiscal year and for other purposes pursuant to clause 20, the unfinished is on amendment one of house report 11717-405 offered by mr. schiff on which further presentation were postponed yeas and nays are ordered the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part arch of house report 117-405 offered by mr. schiff of california the question is on the amendment offered by mr. schiff from

california. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. moore, mr. doggett, mr. lewan these members will vote yes on the schiff amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, as the member designated by that mr. timmons will vote no on amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman joh johnson, i inform the house that she will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> snegd mr. crist miswasserman schultz, they will vote eye. >> mr. katko will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. payne, mr. sires and mr. pascrell and mr. defazio, these members will vote yes on the schiff amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. advance, i inform the house that mr. advance will vote no on amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay.

>> as the member designated by mr. moulton and mrs. lawrence of michigan, these members will vote yes on the schiff amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does ell the gentleman from nebraska seek. mr. bacon: as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no. >> as the member designated by brown of maryland and florida. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the memberdesignated byes + walorski of indiana, she will vote nay on amendment number one. iment for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition. >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio and

ms. williams of georgia, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay. as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. soto and mrs. castro, they will vote yes. >> as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? mrs.bustos: as the member designated by mrs. pingree, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mr. fallon, mr. fallon will vote nay. ism for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as as the member designated by bar began, kahele and peters, these members will vote yes on the schiff amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: as the member designated by mr.~wilson, he will vote iowa on amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote nay on amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be

voting no on amendment number one.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 218, the nays are 207. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 2 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. jones, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 117-405, offered by mr. jones of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i

inform the house that mr. mooney will vote no on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, ms. wasserman schultz of florida, i inform the house that they will vote aye on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. wilson, he will vote nay on amendment number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by the following congress members, barragan, cardenas, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by cliff bentz of oregon, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote no on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, she will vote yea on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. doggett, mr. ryan, mr. cohen, mr. lieu and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these seven meps -- members will vote yes on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. bay diof -- beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote yea on amendment number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member

designated by mr. donald payne, mr. sires, mr. pascrell, mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be voting no on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the following two members, brown of maryland and mccormick of florida, vote yes on h.r. 7900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on amendment 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. trahan of massachusetts, mr. moulton of massachusetts and mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote yes

on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana -- indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. fernandez leger, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote nay on amendment number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter, mr. soto, and mr. castro, i inform the house that these four members will vote yes on the jones amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no on amendment 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote no on amendment 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote nay on amendment number 2.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 221, the nays are 207. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

the unfinished business is the question on amendment 3 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 117-405, offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter, mr. castro, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> as the member designated by mr. issa, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote no on amendment 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member

designated by the following congress members, barragan, cardenas, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. vicki hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that she will vote no on amendment 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. ryan, mr. cohen, mr. doggett, mr. lieu and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist, ms. wasserman schultz, i inform the house that these members will vote aye on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by cliff bentz of oregon, i inform the house that

mr. bentz will vote no on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. sires, mr. payne, mr. pascrell, mr. defazio and mrs. kirkpatrick, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> for the following members, brown of maryland and mccormick of florida, both vote yes. on h.r. 7900. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, i inform the house that she will vote yea on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. fernandez leger, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. trahan of massachusetts, mr. moulton of massachusetts, and mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the schakowsky amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will be voting no on amendment number 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on amendment 3. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote nay on amendment number 3.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 3.

the speaker pro tempore: have all members voted? does any member wish to change their vote? the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 220, the nays are 209. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 4 printed in parse a of house report 117-405, offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kim, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the yeas and nays were

ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in parse a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. kim of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by this yes gentleman from new jersey. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. ryan, mr. doggett, mr. cohen, mr. lieu, and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these seven members will vote yes on the kim amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on amendment number 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members barragan, cardenas, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the kim amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote nay on amendment number 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, ms. ann kirkpatrick, mr. bill pascrell, mr. albio sires and mr. donald payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the kim amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. armstrong: as the member designated by mr. timmons from south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on amendment 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, for the following members, mr. brown of maryland, ms. mccormick of florida, they vote yes on the kim amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote nay on amendment numbe