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 number 4.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by -- 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 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crist and wasserman schultz, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the kim 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 house resolution number 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. ferre unanimous depends legger, i inform the house that -- ms. ferre unanimous depends legger -- fernandez legger, i inform the house that these members will vote yes.

>> as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on amendment number 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman johnson, i inform the house that she will vote yea on the kim amendment. 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. mooney will vote no on amendment 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. beaty of ohio and ms. -- mrs. beatty of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the kim amendment. 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 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter, ms. jayapal, mr. castro and mr. soto, i inform the house that these four members will vote yea on the kim 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 he will vote no on amendment number 4. 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 4. 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 ms. martzler will vote no on amendment 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. taylor, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 4.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 220, the nays are 207. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 8 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. escobar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part 8 of house report 117-405 offered by ms. escobar of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. 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 colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. castro, ms. porter, ms. jayapal and mr. soto, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the escobar amendment. 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 no on amendment 8. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. cohen, mr. ryan, mr. doggett, mr. lieu, mr. panetta, ms. moore and ms. newman, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the escobar amendment. 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 no on amendment 8. 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 escobar amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. tom rice will vote nay on amendment number 8. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote yea on the escobar amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. bentz of oregon, i inform the house that mr. bentz will vote no on amendment number 8. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, mr. peter defazio, mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. pascrell and mr. sires, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the escobar 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 8. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, for the following members, brown of maryland. 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 8. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. moulton, mrs. trahan and mrs. lawrence, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the escobar amendment. 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 8. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- ms. kuster: 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 the escobar 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 8. 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 escobar amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from the great state of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 8. 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 yea on the escobar amendment. 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 nay on amendment number 8. 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 number 8. 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 8. 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 8.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219, the nays are 209. the amendment adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 12 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. khanna, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. khanna of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote yes on the khanna amendment. 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 no on amendment 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by the following members, barragan, cardenas, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the khanna 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 12. 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 yea on the khanna amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. tom rice of south carolina, i inform the house that tom rice will vote nay on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. pascrell, mr. payne and mr. sires, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the khanna 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 12. 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 the members will vote yea on the khanna amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?

mr. beyer: mr. speaker, 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 members will vote yes on the khanna amendment. 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 nay on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. trahan of massachusetts and mr. moulton of massachusetts and mrs. lawrence of michigan, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the khanna 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 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: 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 the khanna

amendment. 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 12. 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 mr. timmons will vote no on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> the following two amendments mr. brown -- will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski, mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from colorado seek recognition >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter and they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tech as seek recognition? mr. babin: as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will vote no. >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will et vote no on amendment number 12. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, mr. katko

will vote nay on amendment number 12.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 215 and nays are 212. the amendment is adopted. fowrnt clause 8 of rule 12, unfinished is question on amendment 13 offered by the gentlewoman from california, msr proceedings were postponed on which the the yeas and nays are ordered were ordered. >> amendment thumb 13, house reports offered by ms. lee of california the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device will record their vote. this is a five-fient 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.] >> mr. speaker, as as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 13. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by pursuant to house resolution 8, mr. bentz will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by congress members bar began

and cardenas, these members will vote yes on the lee amendment. and as the member designated by kahele and peters, they will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition >> as the member designated by mr. tom rice, mr. tom rice will vote no. >> as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. new man, mr. lieu, mr. cohen, mr. d mr. doggett, i inform the house those members will vote yes on lee amendment. as the member designated by mr. ryan and mr. panetta, they will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. katko, he will vote no. mr. jeffries: as the member designated by i inform the house that chairwoman johnson will vote yes. >> as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, ms. salazar will vote nay on amendment number 13. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by by mr. payne, mr. defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the lee amendment. and as the member designated by mr. sires, mr. pascrell and mrss will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. will sop of south carolina, i inform the house that mr.~wilson will vote nay on amendment number 13. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mccormick and brown, will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, nows that she will vote nay on amendment number 13. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia. breyer breyer as the member designated by mr. lieu, mr. lieu will vote yes on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

ms. porter, ms. jayapal and ms. castro, these three members will vote yes on the lee amendment and on as the member designated by mr. soto, he will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas. >> as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, mr. taylor will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? >> i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the lee amendment. as the member designated by by mr. pappas, i inform the house that he will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek reek nice >> as the member designated by mr. rash environs that willer.

>> as the member designated by ms. petey of ohio and ms. williams of georgia, they will vote yes on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska. >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek reek nice? >> as the member designated by mr. tim ops, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. fallon of texas, mr. fallon will vote nay on amendment number 13.

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 350. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 rule 20, the question is on amendment 14 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee on which further proceedings were postponed and yeas and nays are

ordered the clerk: amendment number 14, pripped in part b offered by ms. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. 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.] breyer breyer mr. ryan will vote no. as the member designated by ms. moo moore and mr. panetta and mr. lieu. these members will vote yes on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, he will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. donald payne and mr. peter defazio, these members will vote yes on the he amendment and as the member designated by mr. bill pascrell and mr. sires and mrs. kirkpatrick they will vote no on the lee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> punt to house resolution 8, mr. bepts will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> goer as the member designated by mr. crist, mr. crist will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. katko will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition

>> designated these members will vote on the second lee amendment and as the member designated by ms.er leger fernandez, she will vote yes. >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, mr. rice will vote yes on amendment number 14. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal and ms. porter and mr. katko will vote yes. and as the member designated by mr. soto, he will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado reek initiation? mr. lamborn: mr.~wilson will vote nay on amendment number 14. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

>> the member designated by mrsd ms. williams of georgia, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski, she will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. trahan, mrs. lawrence and mr. moulton, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the lee 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 14. 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 yea on the lee amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 14. 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 and cardenas, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the lee amendment. and, mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress members kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the lee 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 14. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler ever pennsylvania, -- mr. reschenthaler of pennsylvania, i inform the house that he will be voting no

amendment 14. 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 14. 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 14.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, brown votes no on the lee amendment. and cherfilus-mccormick votes yes on the lee amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 151, the nays are 277. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 15 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentlewoman from washington, msr proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part 8 of house report 117-405 offered by ms. jayapal of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. 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? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the jayapal amendment. as the member designated by mr. ryan, mr. doggett and mr. cohen, ms. newman and mr. lieu, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jayapal amendment. 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 he will vote no on amendment 15. 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 and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jayapal amendment. as the member designated by

mr. kahele, i inform the house that mr. kahele will vote no on the jayapal amendment. 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 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, in recognition of your long service to our country, as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter and mr. castro, i inform the house that those three members will vote yes on the jayapal amendment. and as the member designated by mr. soto, i inform the house that he will vote no on the jayapal amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on amendment 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. trahan, mr. moulton and mrs. lawrence, i inform the house that these members will vote yes

on the jayapal 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 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote no on the jayapal 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 nay on amendment number 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. pascrell, mr. payne and mr. sires, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jayapal amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on amendment number 15. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, 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 jayapal amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree and ms. leger fernandez, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the jayapal amendment and as the member designated by mr. pappas, i inform the house that he will vote no on the jayapal amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 15. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, for the following members, brown from maryland is a no. evans and cherfilus-mccormick is a yes. 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 15. 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 yea on the jayapal 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 15. 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 15.

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 15. 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 15.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 155, the nays are 272. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 16 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentleman from washington on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. smith of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. 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? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, i inform the house that ms. moore will vote no on the smith amendment. as the member designated by ms. newman, mr. ryan, mr. doggett, mr. cohen, ms. lieu, -- mr. lieu and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the smith amendment. 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 nay on amendment number 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence, mrs. trahan and mr. moulton, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the smith amendment. 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 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform

the house that mr. crist will vote no on the smith 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 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. castro, ms. jayapal and ms. porter, i inform the house that those three members will vote yes on the smith amendment. as the member designated by mr. soto, i inform the house that he will vote no on the smith amendment. 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 no on amendment 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. defazio, mr. pascrell, mr. payne and

mr. sires, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the smith 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 nay on amendment number 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: 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 the smith amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. hartzler from missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no an amendment 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, voting for the following members, mr. brown, mrs. cherfilus-mccormick, they will vote yes on the smith amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i

inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 16. >> as the member designated by ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that this member will vote yes on the smith amendment. >> as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, ms. salazar will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives bar dpan kahele, they will vote yes. and as the member designated by congress member peters, mr. peters will vote no on the smith amendment. 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, mr.

mr. jeffries: comegd chairwoman johnson, she will vote nay on the smith amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice, thaws mr. rice will vote nay. >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, mr. issa will vote no on amendment number 16. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. babin: as the member designated by mr. taylor of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number #.

number 16. 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 vote nay on amendment number 16. 123450*

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 221. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20. printed in part a of offered by the gentleman from mr. foster

and which the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in part 8 of house report offered by mr. foster of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. 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.] i inform the house these seven members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. katko, he will vote no on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mr. crist, he will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon, he will vote nay on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. barr began, kahele and peters, they will vote yes on the foster amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. salazar will vote nay on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. defazio and mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. payne, they will vote yes on the foster amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mr. bacon: i inform the house

that mrs. hartzler will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire chic recognition? >> i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the foster amendment. 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 no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house she will vote yes on the foster amendment. >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. pepts, i inform the house that mr. bepts will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by chairwoman eddie beer ease johnson ease she will vote the speaker pro tempore: mr. iss a will vote no on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado. >> it as the member designated by mr. soto, + porter and these four members will vote yes on the foster amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, he will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan? >> as the member designated by mr. moulton and mrs. lawrence, they will vote he yes on the foster amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by that mr. mooney will vote yes. ism for what purpose does the gentleman from. >> mr. they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from? >> mr. taylor of texas, mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: as the member designated by mr.~wilson, i inform the house that he will vote nay. >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that

mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 18. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on amendment number 18.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 216 and nays are 2. pursuant to clause 8, the question is on amendment number 19 printed on part arch offered by mr. garamendi and on which the yapped. the clerk will redescreght the amendment. the clerk: house report 117-405 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is offered on the amendment offered by the gentlemanfrom california. [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.]

>> as the member designated by mr.~wilson. he will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: as as the member designated by mr. panetta and mr. ryan they will vote no. as as the member designated by ms. moore and misnew man, mr. doggett and mr. lieu, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. bacon: as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. issa, he will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. opinion disbee and ms. leger fer nan december they will vote knee and as the member designated by mr. pappas, i

inform the house that he will vote no on the garamendi amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does jar seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana? >> as the member designated by ms. williams, i inform the house that ms. williams will vote yes. >> as the member designated by ms. salazar, she will vote nay on amendment number 19. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek reek nice? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johns ease johnson, she will vote yes. >> as the member designated by that mr. bentz will vote no on

amendment number 19. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. defazio and mr. pascrell and mr. payne, these members will vote yes on the garamendi amendment. and as the member designated by by mrs. mrs.kirkpatrick: patrick, she will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from via seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, he will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition are >> as the member designated by i inform the house that congressman moulton and tray han and mrs. lawrence will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek

recognition? >> i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote yes on amendment number 19. >> as the member designated by congress members bar began and cardenas they will vote yes and member designated cahuilla, these members will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that mr. katko will vote nay on the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. castro, mr. soto, ms. porter and ms. jayapal, i inform the house that these four members will vote yes on the garamendi amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on amendment 19.

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 19. 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 19. 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 he will be vote be no on amendment number 19. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, voting for the following members, brown from maryland is a no. and cherfilus-mccormick from

florida is a no.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 318 and the nays are 309 -- 118, the nays are 309. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question amendment number 20 -- on amendment number 20 offered by ms. tlaib on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in part 8 of house report 117-405 offered by ms. tlaib of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. 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? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 20. 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, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the tlaib amendment. as the member designated by congress members kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the tlaib amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote no on the

tlaib amendment. 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 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: 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 the tlaib 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 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. peter defazio, mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. pascrell, mr. sires and mr. payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the tlaib 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 nay on amendment number 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

mr. carter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that the member will vote yea for the tlaib amendment. 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 nay on amendment number 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, 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 members will vote yes on the tlaib amendment. 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 no on amendment 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: 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 mrs. trahan and mrs. lawrence will vote yes on the tlaib amendment and mr. moulton will vote no on the tlaib 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 20. 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 yea on the tlaib amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on amendment 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, two following members, mr. brown from maryland votes yes and mrs. cherfilus-mccormick votes yes. 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 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, my apologies, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. jayapal, ms. porter, mr. castro, i inform the house that those three members will vote yes on the tlaib amendment. but as the member designated by mr. soto, i inform the house that he will vote no on the tlaib amendment. and i thank the gentleman for his time. 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 20. 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 she will vote no on amendment 20. 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 he will be voting no on amendment number 20.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 156, the nays are 270. the amendment is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 25 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. 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: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. 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? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lieu, mr. panetta, mr. ryan, mr. doggett, mr. cohen, ms. moore and ms. newman, i inform the house that these

members will vote yes on the norton amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on amendment 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: 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 the norton amendment. 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 25. 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, kahele and peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the norton 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 25. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. bill pascrell, mr. sires, mr. payne, mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. defazio, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the norton 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 he will be voting no on amendment number 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote yes on the norton 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 nay on amendment number 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that ms. williams will vote yea on the norton 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 25.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. trahan, mr. moulton and mrs. lawrence, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the norton amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that she will vote nay an amendment number 25. 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 yea on the norton 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 an amendment number 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

ms. jayapal, ms. porter and mr. castro, they will vote yes. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote no on amendment 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. bacon: as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, mrs. hartzler will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, mr. timmons will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. issa, i inform the house that mr. issa will sought no on amendment number 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: as the member

designated by mr.~wilson of south carolina, mr.~wilson will vote no on amendment number 25. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by brown of maryland and mccormick of florida, they both vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 218 and nays are 209. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished is question on amendment number 29 printed in house report offered by ms. sanchez and further proceedings were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part 8 of house report offered by ms. sanchez chez of california.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- [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.] they will vet yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition >> mr. issa will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? gentlemen mr. jeffries: chairwoman eddie bernice johnson will vote yes.

>> mr.~wilson will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from. >> mr. crist will vote yes on the sanchez amendment. >> as the member designated by mr. katko, he will vote no on amendment number 29. 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 nay on amendment number 29. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek mr. sires and mr. payne and mr. pascrell and mrs. kirkpatrick, these members will vote yes on the sanchez amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek

recognition? >> i inform the house that mr. rice will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the memberdesignated byes ms. pingree, these members will vote yes and the member designated by mr. pappas, he will vote no on the sanchez amendment. the speaker pro tempore: as the member designated by mr. fallon, he will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. williams. i inform the house that she will vote no. mr. bacon: fogged that mrs. heartler will vote no.

>> as the member designated by + jayapal, mrs. porter andist gives me great that these four members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas. >> mr. taylor of texas as as the member designated by mr. texas, he will vote nay on amendment number 29. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> these members will vote yes on the sanchez amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does they will vote on this amendment. >> mr. reschenthaler will be voting no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

>> brown of maryland and mccorm ac of florida the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina. >> as the member designated by mr. timmons. mr. tim ops will vote no. >> as the member designated by congress members, it is my tremendous honor that these members will vote yes on the sanchez amendment. 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 on amendment number 29. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that she will vote nay on amendment number 29.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by cliff bepts of oregon, he will vote no on amendment number 29.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 207 and the nays are 219. the amendment is not adopted. purpose to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished is question on amendment 31 offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider on which further proceedings were postponed and yapped. the clerk: amendment number 31, printed in part 8 of house report offered by mr. schneider of illinois. members will record their votes by electronic device , this is a five-minute vote-t [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.] breyer breyer they will vote yes on the schneider amendment. >> mr. speaker, as a member designated of mr. mooney of virginia, he will vote nay on amendment 31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, mr. crist will vote yes on the schneider amendment. >> as the member designated by mr. bentz will vote no on amendment 316789 the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> these members will vote yes on the schneider amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina,

mr. rice will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. defazio and mrs. kirkpatrick and mr. payne, they will vote yes on the schneider amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr.~wilson, mr.~wilson will vote yes. >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, mrs. porter and mr. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek reek snigs >> as the member designated by mr. katko will vote yes. >> mr. speaker as mr. moulton

and mr. lawrence, these members will vote yes on the schneider amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by + salazar, she will vote nay on amendment number 31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. pingree, these members will vote yes on the schneider amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. fallon, he will vote nay. >> smeght ms. williams of georgia will vote nay. >> as the member designated by mr. issa of california, mr. issa will vote no on amendment number

31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. timmons, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> dispegd mr. browns and mr. mccormick, they both vote yes. >> as the member designated by plings walorski, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on amendment number 31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. reschenthaler, he will be voting nay on amendment number 31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition?

mr. bacon: as the member designated by mrs. hartzler, she will vote no on amendment number 316. -- 31. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> as the member designated by mr. taylor, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 31.

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 yea on the snyder amendment -- schneider amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218, the nays are 208. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendment 32 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by the gentlewoman from new york, miss rice, on which further proceedings were post poabed and on which -- postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by miss rice of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 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 colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on amendment number 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. kuster: as the member designated by ms. pingree, mr. pappas and ms. leger fernandez, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the rice amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. armstrong: mr. speakers, as the member designated by mr. timmons from south carolina, i inform the house that he will vote no on amendment 32. 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, kahele, peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the rice 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 resolution 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. porter,

ms. jayapal, mr. soto and mr. castro, i inform the house that those four members will vote yes on the rice amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: as the member designated by mr. katko of new york, i inform the house that he will vote yea on amendment number 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. williams of georgia, i inform the house that the member will vote yea on the rice amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south carolina seek recognition? ms. mace: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on amendment 32. 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 yea on the rice amendment. 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 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that mr. crist will vote yes on the rice amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that she will vote nay on amendment number 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. moulton, mrs. trahan and mrs. lawrence, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the rice 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 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. sires, mr. pascrell, mrs. kirkpatrick, mr. defazio and mr. payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the rice 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 32. 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. cohen, mr. doggett, mr. ryan, mr. lieu and mr. panetta, i inform the house that these seven members will vote yes on the rice 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 nay on amendment number 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. issa of california, i inform the house that mr. issa will vote no on amendment 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from nebraska seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mrs. hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no on amendment 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. miller: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mooney of west virginia, i inform the house that mr. mooney will vote nay on amendment 32. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: madam speaker, as the member designated by these two members, brown of maryland and cherfilus-mccormick of florida, they both vote yes.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 220, the nays

are 205. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 1-c of rural 19, further consideration of h.r. 7900 is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1225. resolved that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. committee on small business, mr. committee on oversight and reform, mr. flood. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i hereby remove myself as co-sponsor from h.r. 8167. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i hereby remove myself as co-sponsor from h.r. 8167. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request is accepted. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 7900 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 305. h.r. 7900. a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year

2023 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. speier: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by ms. speier of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of amendment 49, on the international military education and training program. imet is, as we all know, a prestigious and competitive

program that trains the next generation of senior leadership in our allies' militaries around the globe and enables us to maximize the competitive advantage our alliances and partnerships provide. however, as of 2019, approximately only 8% of the imet participants were women. that percentage increased only two points since 2015. we can and must do better to ensure that we continue to provide this world class training to our female military leaders around the world. this amendment would simply require a gender analysis assessment of the program to better understand the impediments to increasing the number of female participants and address any specific needs the women in the program may have. by signaling the importance of including more gender diversity in the program, we are encouraging our partners and allied militaries to invest more heavily in the recruitment, training and promotion of women within their security forces. we do know that this is not just

important, it's smart. we know that our world is more peaceful and prosperous when women are involved in national security and defense decision making processes. i also want to point out that this will continue the work that was begun under former president trump when he signed the women peace in security act during his administration. it received bipartisan support then. it is also supported by president biden. it will also improve military effectiveness of our security partners and thereby advance implementation of the national defense strategy. and with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. gallagher: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gallagher: first, let me say at the outset, that i very much appreciate the way the chairwoman and i have been able to work together on the issue of

military education in general. but i have to oppose this amendment. international military education and training or imet is a vital pillar of our national security. in recent years ukrainian service members have benefited from imet to enhance their combat readiness and lethality. as we've seen in the aftermath of putin's invasion of ukraine, imet could mean life and death and the ability of our allies and partners to with stand aggression. the u.s. military's played a key role in boosting ukrainian military capabilities, training alongside them, providing ukraine with critical weapons and munition, enabling its reserve component and more. our security focus was lazer focused on enhancing ukraine's ability to defend itself against a russian invasion. my concern is that the amendment would broaden the scope of imet and end up watering down the results for both the united states and for our security

partners. promoting human rights, including the rights of women, is a well established goal of our foreign policy. female opportunity and narrowing gaps between men and women should however not be a part of the u.s. military's mandate when it comes to teaching allied and partner nations the art of war. as i said earlier tonight, all of our instruction for war fighting needs to we need to be focused on the foiting of wars and allow us to deter wars and not discount other issues and the military is not the right tool of advancing this objective. how everything became war and the military, the u.s. military has taken omissions that is fighting and winning the nation's wars and this amendment would exacerbate and i oppose

this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i share a position of working well with my colleague as the -- he is not appreciate, what all due respect what this amendment does. that was something that was signed by president trump and it was yep then and been embraced by president biden. this is looking at the facts that very few women in the military have been participating in this program. this program passes to provide military education and training and talking 6% to 8%. this is an analysis, that is all this amendment does is a.m.ize

whether or not we have promoted this properly to encourage our allies to have service women to participate. we do know when you have women in the military, it adds to our success, it does not degrade it. and with that, i will yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gallego: i don't deny that women in -- mr. gallagher: i serve in the march e.p.a. corps and i think we need to strike the right balance of wide yeping our military education and training programs such that they get distraghted from the core focus

on fighting and forcing our own requirements that the united states sets on some of our allied partners. i appreciate the gentlelady's argument but i remain in opposition to this amendment and oppose this amendment pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 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 request a recorded vote. pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the chair upses that amendments 5 # and 65 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 79 printed in part arch of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 79 printed in part 8 of house report 117-405, offered by mr. levin of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. lev yip and a member opposed, each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i would like to to

thank adam smith, the national defense authorization for fiscal year 2023 and working with my team over the past few years to strengthen provisions tore address p fmp as exposures and i thank my representatives for working with me. the military required the use of firefighting foam known as foam or a fmp fmp fmp despite having known sin the 1970's that it was toxic to people and the environment. the department of defense has destroyed these chemicals. pfas does not break down. research shows that p fmp arch

smp can travel downwind and they deposits in soil and water exposing america caps to these chemicals. research shows that in practice incinerators are not destroying it in our air and drinking water. that's why pmp fmp as substances have been called forever chemicals and without evidence that the chemical is being destroyed and not causing further harm. that's why my amendment. it builds on a provision enacted under last year's n dmp arch arch and by the department of

defense until the environmental protection agency completed the final rule. this extends the prohibition to submit a report on the progress to its implementation and not requiring. there is no doubt that we need to dispose of dangerous chemicals. this amendment protects our communities and ensures that i environs -- ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek

recognition? >> i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: jarvegd for five minutes. mr. rogers: this report is well intentioned. and we want to make sure it destroys pf arch s materials and there is a current materials under this and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr.tonko: i thank the gentleman for offering this. we have a lot of ways pfas. we need a plan that it is

handled and disposed safely. and to incinerate these materials without proper evaluation whether it could be done safely. this amendment is the right approach and requires to look at the options before we incinerate that could put. there needs to be much greater transparency and how d.o.d. is planning to deal with waste in the future and congress has the responsibility to make sure it is protective. i urge members to support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanfrom michigan reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. johnson: i rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. what concerns me is subsection c this moratorium on fire fighting foam and does president fix the problems. the scoping provisions in section 343 and captures and i quote material september to another entity or tenths, unquote. this ban is ambiguity who is subject and the temporary ban from just the military. this amendment contraconvenience the law of governing these matters. if the executive or judicial

branches of our government adopt this, it will have on waste storage and greatest concern, it has the real potential to overwhelm landfill capacity. again, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama and the gentlemanfrom michigan is recognized. >> this is not a permanent ban but guidelines for safe disposal and congress was forced to played because d.o.d. ignored the directives requiring d.o.d. to satisfy certain requirements to ensure it did not cause

further harm. eep's scientists mainly three commercial science and water objection dation and found a high level well over 99.99%. eep has suggested these technologies could replace it. so we know there are better technologies so that the defense department can km up with a plan. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from alabama is recognized. alabama alabama i reserve. i want to say i oppose this amendment and i urge a no vote and i yield back pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from michigan. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the pip of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from texas. >> request yeas and nays pursuant to 1-s 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 81 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the derveg. the clerk: amendment number 81 printed in house report 117-405,

offered by + speer of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. speier: colleagues, this is a really important amendment. this deals with suicide and securing guns. this program will be a pilot and at five installations and voluntary and it is bipartisan and senator dan sullivan is my co-lead. it is in the senate nd arch a. the nra is satisfied with this. what does it do. my subcommittee spent over 100 hours over suicide in the military. i have spoken to parents and

spouses of servicemembers who have died by suicide. we have seen an extraordinary increase of suicide. 40% increase in the past five years and hot spots in areas like alaska and in the u.s. george washington where seven sailors have died by suicide. i've traveled to alaska with senator sullivan to visit soldiers in anchorage and fairbanks. we've heard from soldiers who feel isolated, stressed out and disconnected, who must wait two to three months to see a behavioral health provider. and the providers are overwhelmed by demand from suicidal service members. it is a challenging problem. earlier in march, the subcommittee had a hearing and one of the experts said that one

of the best things we can do, one of the best things we can do is deal with the issue that many persons who are contemplating suicide are making that decision impulsively. a few seconds makes a difference. so the experts are saying to us, if we have the simple process by which voluntarily service members can request a gun safe or a firearm lock and have it paid for, that will save lives. because ideations can come and go so quickly. we must create a new norm, not through mandates, but by encouragement. this amendment would create a voluntary pilot program at five installations as i already mentioned. safe storage has bipartisan support from both president trump and biden and i would really request a resounding

bipartisan vote for this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment requires the department of defense to establish a voluntary pilot program to provide secure gun storage or safety devices for personally owned firearms. i don't think it's the d.o.d.'s responsibility. this should be the responsibility of the service member who owns the firearm. most firearm manufacturers provide gun locks with the sale of a firearm. they also are readily available at very low cost in many sporting good stores around the country. i urge members to poe owes -- to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, madam chair. i have great admiration for the ranking member of the committee. you know, a lot of things aren't d.o.d.'s responsibility. except for the fact that service members are their responsibility. and we have an obligation to

address this extraordinary rate of suicide in the military. this is one modest step as a pilot program to determine whether or not it is effective. we have experts telling us it is. and we have a crisis of service members who are taking their lives and there does not appear to be rhyme or reason to it. but for the fact that they have suicidal ideations or because they can't see behavioral health experts, which we are trying to address through other elements of the ndaa. so i feel very strongly that this is really a key, again, it's bipartisan, it's bicameral, and the n.r.a. is fine with the amendment. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution --

oh. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. speier: i think i've said it enough and i will close. i ask for an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i still oppose the amendment and i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania -- the amendment -- i'm sorry. 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.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1224, i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the chair -- the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2 consisting of amendments numbered 34, 40, 47, 70, 75, 77, 113, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186,

187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240,

241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 printed in part 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 the gentleman from alabama,

mr. rogers, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number s 113 p -- that amendment 113 printed in part a of 117-405 be modified by the form i've placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: the amendment is modified as follows. at the end of subtitle g of title 5, adding the following new section. section 5, activities to assist the transition of members of the armed forces and veterans into careers in education. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the modification? without objection, the amendment is modified.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, a member of the committee, mr. khanna, to speak on the amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. khanna: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank chairman smith for his extraordinary leadership in having a strong amendment to affirm the u.s.-india defense partnership. i want to thank ranking member rogers for making this amendment truly bipartisan. there is no relationship of greater significance to the united states' strategic interests than the u.s.-india partnership. it is necessary to affirm democracies. it is necessary to stop china's border aggression. it's necessary for us to lead in critical technologies. this gives a sense that while we're building this relationship, we should not be sanctioning india and it also

will help facilitate india getting more of their defense from the united states and not russia. i just want to thank again chairman smith for his leadership and making sure that this is bipartisan and i want to thank kate gold for her work on our staff and the other staff on this and all the other amendments. thank you, i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i rise in support of this en bloc amendment and i would like to yield three minutes to my friend and colleague from puerto rico, miss gonzalez-colon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. miss gonzalez-colon: thank you, and thank you, ranking member rogers. i want to thank you for your work and chairman smith did to put this bill together. i rise in support of en bloc package number 2 for the national defense authorization act of 2023. this bill includes three of my amendments that will directly

benefit our country's national security, as well as the people of puerto rico. my first amendment directs the secretary of the army to ensure that small arms range is made available for the army reserve in puerto rico. currently puerto rico only has a single firearms range for the department of defense personnel and it's located at the south part of the island, which is managed by the puerto rico national guard. and it's hours away from some of our army bases on the island. this amendment was included in the house-passed version of ndaa last year. amendment 416 requires the secretary of defense to enter into agreement with the national academy of science to investigate the health effects on the island that may have been caused by toxic waste left by

the navy after 70 years of live fire training. this amendment was also included in the house-passed version of ndaa last year. my third and final amendment, 417, will require the director of the defense health agency to conduct health-related behavior survey among the members of all armed forces. this survey, which has been conducted for the last 30 years, was last conducted in 2018. however, an updated survey is necessary to provide the department of defense with up to date information to better understand the health and health-related behaviors and well-being of all service members. information on topics such as the access to mental health care, understanding of those deployment -- postdeployment needs and physical health are needed to identify resources and continue to improve the support

provided to our service members. and lastly, i would like to invite support for the following amendments that i co-sponsored, 958, 96 and 1001 from my friend from the woman's caucus, representative lawrence from michigan, that are included in this en bloc package. i encourage all members to vote in favor of this en bloc package, number 2, and thank you, ranking member i yield bac. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, mrs. hayes, for the purposes to speak on the amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. hayes: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in support of the amendments en bloc 2 which includes my amendment to support the mental health and nutritional needs of service members. service members across the country and in my state seek mental health care who seek -- who seek mental health care often encounter outdated resources or a lack of information on military websites.

without immediate and accurate access to mental health providers, service members and their families are left to navigate a crisis on their own. service members already have insurance hurdles that can make it difficult to find acceptable and covered providers. my amendment would help bridge this gap by requiring the military to review all installation level web information about suicide prevention and behavioral health and ensure contact information is up to date. my amendment also requires the military to certify their review to congress on a imreerl by a -- on a yearly basis. additionally, i urge my colleagues to support chairman mcgovern's amendment which would require d.o.d. and usda to collect data on food insecurity amongst service members. it would require the department of defense to train and designate a point person on all military bases to refer service members seeking nutritional assistance. last november, as chair of the house agriculture nutrition subcommittee, i hosted a hearing to address hunger among service members and our witnesses

pointed out the lack of consistent data to address this issue. i support this amendment and will continue to work with chairman mcgovern to ensure that no family, especially military families, go hungry. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendments en bloc 2 and the final national defense authorization act. thank you and with that the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves and jam from alabama. mr. rogers: i reserve. mr.smith: i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman d.m. anand: i rise to support en bloc 2 and amendments that we have worked on over the years that are important to the nation's safety.

and what i want to highlight is the amendment that calls for the secretary of defense to report to congress and the extent of threat to national security posed by domestic terrorist groups motivated by white supreme asy such as the proud boys. we know those organizations were roving around january 6 and were motivated to come to washington, d.c., by the former of the united states and this is one of the greatest threats and as reported in the media, coupled with recent arrests, these representations are very troubling. my concern is as the the activity of vial thans influence is will increase to attacks and

i ask my colleagues to continue to support the en bloc 2. and after $10 million to increase funding for office of health and national institutes of health to combat breast cancer. i can tell you of the anompleous that it has. it is a form of breast cancer and 13% to 25% and onset a a younger age this will help young women in young men and women who are diagnosed with breast cancer and support for post-traumatic stress disorder and there is a center in my district by

off-campus. pmp tmp smp dmp was brought to attention. and the increased reaforms and restoring their lives. i want to make sure my amendment with requiring the national guard in coordination with the secretary of defense a report with personnel training required to mitigate and respond. houston is hurricane prone. i cannot tell you the kind of work and leadership that the tech as national guard has done on behalf of my constituents in in when we have been in struggle and m.r.e.'s and the flooding has been enormous and i ask my

colleague to support all of my amendments and to highlight those that i have just highlighted. -- i thank the gentleman very much. i just highlighted. i would like to emphasize that the national guard has been enormously effective and let me finish quickly with the amendment dealing with young people in the academy in particular, a young cadet that had a stotterring issue and cadets should be and assessed for four years and don't push them out like this young cadet was and to be able to accept the command and want to and i ask support for en bloc 2 and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve. mr.smith: i am pleased to yield minute and a half from the gentlewoman from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: i want to thank chairman and unprecedented challenges and ranking member rogers for bringing this to the floor. a joint briefing for the army and to serve and after hearing the stories of we need to add transparency that have left service families behind. they protect and serve our nation. the least we can do and not stress about affordable child care. the closest run c.d.c. would add

an average of four hours per day. and in the absence of proposing to remedy the situation is wholly inadequate. and i understand this. i offered this bipartisan amendment with representatives castor and gaetz that we must deliver. i thank for including this. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mr.smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama.

mr. rogers: i yield back pursuant to house resolution 224, previous question as modified from 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 eyes have it, the en bloc amendments as modified -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas. pursuant to house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further questions on this rm question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr.smith: pursuant to house resolution i offer amendments en

bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of 279, 280, # 81, 282, 28 #, 284, 284. 288, 289, 290, 290, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 2 # 9, 300, # # 1, 3 # 3, 304, 3 d.m. anand: 310, 311, 312, 315, 316, 1 and p 22, # 25 # 263330, 330.

33. and 336. 337. 339340, 341, 342, # 44, 347, 348, 350, # 50, # 354, 356, 383 of 0, 362 and 3 of #, # 6 #, 370, 371, 371, 373, 374, 376, 3p 7, 380, 381 and 382 printed in house report and offered by mr. smith of washington pursuant to house resolution the

gentleman from washington, mr. smith and the gentleman from rogers each will control 15 minutesment. mr.smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. mr. pallone: let me thank chairman smith. i want to talk to the amendment by document details of the consideration of the waiver requirements to 907 of the freedom support act and report on security assistance undermines the peaceful between armenia. we have been concerned about the constant waiver requirements

because because it has continued this adpretion against armenia. and we don't believe there is any justification for waiving this because of the constant threat that azithromicin but to to continues ever since that war. we would like to see some action, if you will to show whether this security assistance should continue with these constant waivers and i would ask our members to support this as part of the ep olympic number 3. and with that, i yield back. mr. rogers: i urge my colleagues to vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves.

mr.smith: we have no further speakers and 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. alabama pursuant to house resolution, the previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by 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. pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek

recognition? mr.smith: pursuant to h. res. 1224, i offer amendments en bloc. >> number 383, 385, 386, 38 # 2390, 393, 394, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 40 #, 405, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 416, 417, 419, 420, 422, 4244237, 429, 431, 433, 434, 435, 436, 438,

439, 441, 445, 49, 453 and 459, 460, 462, 463, 466, 467, h 69, 470, 471, 47 #, 473, 45 and 478, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505,

506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 357, 341 and 542 printed in part 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 the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington.

mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i have no speakers on this en bloc package and will reserve my time for the moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i too have no speakers. oh, i do have, i have one speaker. i yield to i've -- i need to yield five minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. tenney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. tenney: thanks. thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment, number 860, which is a modified version of my bipartisan stop the chinese communist party infrastructure act. there's a growing concern and rightfully so surrounding awards of costly and sensitive public works projects across the united states to affiliate -- companies affiliated with the chinese communist party known as the c.c.p. bad actors have taken advantage of the availability of unaccountable federal tax dollars. it's critical that congress

ensures that the chinese community party linked entities do not receive these or any other federal funds for that matter for primary or subcontracts to complete infrastructure projects in america or through the department of defense. u.s. taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects should be held to a high standard of both quality and security, public funds should not line the poblghts of the chinese -- pockets of the chinese community party which is engaged in a large scale offensive against american national and industrial security, or help fund the chinese government's continued human rights abuses. while hardworking americans struggle to make ends meet, federal, state and local governments have awarded major public works projects to the chinese communist party affiliated entities who have in turn preu prowed lackluster results and cost the american people billions of dollars in the aftermath. the united states must do more to stand up to communist china while simultaneously bolstering our domestic construction and manufacturing industries. this is why i submitted the stop

chinese communist party infrastructure act as an amendment to this year's national defense authorization act. this important legislation prohibits the department of defense from using federal funds to enter, engage in or award public works contracts in the united states to entities headquartered in china or affiliated with the chinese government or the chinese communist party. it is time for congress to step up to the plate in support of american manufacturing and industry and against communist china's gross human rights abuses and predatory trade practices. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i also rise today in support of other amendments introduced in this year's national defense authorization act. the first amendment requires an assessment of the previous u.n. arms embargo on iran, as well as a report on what steps the department of defense and state are taking now in the absence of

u.n. arms embargo to constrain iranian arms proliferation. the second amendment requires a report on the activities of the islamic revolutionary guard corps operatives abroad, including the ways in which the u.s. is working with other nations to counter the threat that they pose. the islamic revolutionary guard corps is a u.s.-designated foreign terrorist organization and yet the irgc affiliated officials continue to operate freely and openly in many foreign countries, often under the auspices of iran's illegitimate diplomatic operations. even here in the u.s. the iranian regime is reportedly continuing its efforts to plan and execute attacks against former senior government officials, including former secretary of state mike pompeo. the time is now for the united states to increase cooperation with our partners and allies around the world, to address and expose the full range of threats posed by iranian operatives.

and finally, my last amendment requires a report on the threat of aerial drones and unmanned aircraft to u.s. military bases both here and abroad. every u.s. military base and installation should be prepared to detect, disable and disarm hostile or unidentified unmanned aerial systems. sadly we know many are not. my amendment will be a significant step toward to -- forward to ensure the department of defense has the resources it needs to deploy unmanned traffic management u.t.m. systems to protect our interests and personnel. the report is long overdue i strongly encourage -- overdue much i strongly encourage my colleagues to support these amendments and thank you for including these. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. takano: thank you, chairman smith. i rise today in support of the amendment of my friend and colleague, congressman lieu, that would allow the department

of veterans affairs and partners to address the needs of homeless veterans in the los angeles area by authorizing the use of innovative funding streams. currently the west l.a. v.a. leasing act of 2016 restricts funding. any federal revenue generated from leases on the west los angeles v.a. campus may be used only for the renovation and maintenance of lands and facilities. this means that while the v.a. can use proceeds from the leases to pay for things like running utility lines, they cannot use funds for the support of services that veterans residing on the campus need. los angeles has the largest homeless veteran population in the country, with close to 10% of all homeless veterans across the u.s. residing there. the west l.a. v.a. hospital campus provides an enormous opportunity to provide shelter and support for those who have served our nation buffets hard times by -- facials buffets hard times. we've made great strides to

address veteran homelessness but there's still so much more that needs to be done. specifically, this amendment will ensure that the west l.a. v.a. is able to collect $25 million from the los angeles purple line metro easement and put that money toward housing and supportive services for homeless veterans. funds from the easements and other use agreements at the west l.a. v.a. shouldn't be return -- should be returned to the campus and used for those who served our country in the armed forces. this is simply common sense. last november i visited the west l.a. v.a. campus with v.a. secretary mcdonough, congresswoman brownley, congresswoman bass and congressman lieu who is leading this amendment. during that visit, we learned about how the v.a. campus was transitioning the care, treatment and rehabltive services or ctrs from using tents to small, innovative shelters.

1 1/2 more? mr. smith: i yield an additional one minute to the ge the gentle. mr. takano: thank you. this provides a much more supportive living situation for veterans trying to escape homelessnessment currently there are roughly 105 veterans residing in these shelters and over 550 unique veterans have been admitted to the program. it is proven tock successful -- it has proven to be a successful model to get veterans moved to housing or treatment programs. the change in congressman lieu's amendment will make -- we'll make is especially significant. v.a. has determined that under current law, it is restricted from using funds from its leases and easements to pay for critical improvements for veteran safety and well-being, like security for ctrs. this amendment would also free up funding for permanent supportive housing, to be built on the campus, which mean more veterans would be off the streets and into a home to call their own, with the v.a. care that they need close by.

i yield back, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. garcia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. garcia: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for including my two amendments in this en bloc. madam speaker, i rise to support two of my amendments that are included in this en bloc. the first authorizes federal funds for two grant programs under the maritime administration. my amendment focuses on the often overlooked but critical maritime industry. it is especially important to my district which includes a maritime center of excellence campus and the port of houston.

my amendment authorizes $30 million for a grant program to colleges which offer high-quality maritime work force education and training programs. it also authorizes $30 million for the small shipyard grant program which supports training programs for ship building and ship repair workers. congress must support the next generation of maritime workers and congress must support our ply chain workers. this amendment does that. it's just that simple. the second amendment i led supports a pilot program on the sharing of suspicious financial activity. this pilot program allows financial institutions to share any suspicious information with their foreign branches, subsidiaries and affiliates. put simply, this program is designed to promote transparency and prevent illegal financial activity. it became law as part of the anti-money laundering act of

2020, included in the ndaa. currently this pilot program is authorized for three years with a start date of january, 2021. regrettably, the program has yet to begin. with the adoption of my amendment, which is just a technical fix, the pilot program will be authorized for three years following its actual inception. this allows ample time to implement and to also merits success. i urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendments and the underlying bill. thank you, madam speaker, and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. we have no further speakers. i urge adoption of the en bloc package and 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: i too urge adoption of the en bloc package and i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: 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 gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3 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 384 printed in part a of house report resolution 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 384 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. bowman of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from new york, mr. bowman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. bol bol thank you -- mr. bowman: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bowman: madam speaker, i rise today to urge support for my amendment that will take an important step towards restoring congressional war powers. this amendment will bring our unauthorized military presence in syria to a long overdue debate in congress so we can ultimately do our constitutional duty to vote to authorize or reject military action. members on both sides of the aisle have long recognized the constitution and war powers act of 1973 grant congress the

exclusive power to send our service men and women into war. members of congress are duly elected by their districts to represent them in washington, to vote and decide on legislation and determine how the u.s. uses the power and the -- of the purse and sword. unfortunately unauthorized military presence undercuts this role. a member of congress should never learn about an air strike from the news. this is why the american people must decide when and where we use our military might. and that decision is made through their congressional representatives. ensuring that congress continues to authorize military activity is not only about guard railing good democracy. it is also about fiscal responsibility and integrity. washington is known for military contractors lobbying for endless wars to ensure endless profits. even when our lowest paid service members have to rely on

food pantries to feed themselves and their families. that is a policy choice and our bloated pentagon budget compared to our investments in schools, health care and jobs at home is a policy choice. our military it extends across dozens of countries. my bipartisan amendment, which i'm honored to be joined by representatives khanna, schakowsky in offering is a femme next step in breaking that cycle. this should be debated and answered with the recorded vote in congress. this amendment does not take a position on policy questions but merely requires this body to

follow the constitution and hold the vote. i hope my colleagues will agree that our troops and the american people deserve to see this body and cast their he vote. former president trump made it clear that u.s. military troops in syria were there to secure the oil but but was never obtained for that purpose. i disagree with claims that the au mmp fmp responding to the is september 11 attacks authorized them to engage against these forces that had nothing to do with those attacks. my colleagues that he doesn't need authorization to seize oil in an unconstitutional.

they don't care about the cop stewings or the war powers' act. i agree with president bide yep who has called for a new era of diplomacy and must be our tile and should not be used as anance for every problem. one step would be to restore war powers, which is this resolution put forth in this amendment. i honor the sacrifice is by our kurdish allies and nothing sports the kurdish people and let me be clear. this is a vote to restore the

power of congress in authorizing military in syria. this is indefinite duration and with little regard to what will happen unless the troops are gone without a gradal release. let's learn from the horrors in afghanistan. i want to have a debate about the role of the military in syria. it may be this body authorizes such military to support the kurdish people. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized >> u.s. troops are in syria to fight isis and worked on partners. this mission has been in syria extremely successful and the job is nowhere done. we eliminated the leader in syria and a top according to the u.s. central command, the removal of these isis leaders will disrupt their plot and car question out attacks. this is necessary to defeat isis. such a shortsighted amendment will cut it and this is not the time the u.s. to abap dope our

allies and partners syria. we have seen what occurs when such actions are taken. no one wants our soldiers none of us believe that the 2001a ump mmp fmp or many of you believe must be updated and replaced. but forcing a withdrawal and such a plan undermines our -- such a plan undermips our military position. we saw it in iraq and troops had to go back. we must withdraw and not an artificial timeline and i urge opposition to this amendment

pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is offered on the amendment offered by the gentlemanfrom new york. 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 texas. mr. gohmert: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered and pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 391 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition?

>> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 391 printed in part arch of 117-405, offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: swrasm massachusetts and a member will control five minutes. the chair reek newseses the gentleman from massachusetts. keith kited this has consistently inlewded climate change as one of the most incredible and enduring threats. secretary austin just eight months ago called climate change a threat and has said, quote, no nation can find lasting

security. climate change leads to extreme weather patterns and reduces our mass populars layings and terrorist activity and in fact, u.s. national security have dubbed climate change the new forever war. and in a report how extreme weather has cost billions of dollars to like florida's d.m. anand: other military installations as well and interrupts our training and other operations and other bases to rising seas such as guam and the marshall islands. this legislation doesn't necessitate any additional funds

despite the cost to our military. it requires the department of state. the u.s. state department has hosts and these offices would have environmental issues froment in mind and support efforts to advance climate solutions. there are no individuals that folk cans on this and the training provided to energy really don't equip them with the tools to tackle environmental issues. the threat demands. this bill would ensure our whose sole focus to combat this

challenge. this is one of d.o.d.'s highest priorities and our country can't face alone. using our existing global is to plus-up with our international partners this amendment is towards geo political stability and u.s.-national security. i urge my colleagues to support the measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise to speak time in opposition. there are a lot of issues with this amendment not the least of which, my colleague as the committee of jurisdiction for

this amendment. yet we are not taking it up because we don't want the debate and the national defense authorization act, this amendment, adds to the excessive bureaucracy at the state department goer not at the pentagon. has nothing to do with national security. this is about political ideology and using the national defense authorization act to put climate change officer at diplomatic. it is alleged to provide in the state department. and it stipulates this must be done in an equitable and just manner. you know what is not just?

sending state departments officials trying to emerge in their world and their economies by destabilizing so john kerry can fly around in his private jet. and they must transition to electric systems on the forced child and slave labor. that doesn't seem equitable. this amendment capes a sense of congress. talking about the national defense authorization act. this is not the state and foreign ops re-authorization. this doesn't belong here. and everybody knows we face enormous challenges around the

globe from a national security policy. we talk about scry lanka d.m. anand: overthrough their government because they can't eat because these policies. these policies imposed on them by the united states of and green new deal garbage. and electrifying and in the third world country and now it's dark at night. in their homes there are no like that because of this kind of stuff. this doesn't belong here, but it doesn't belong as an amendment on this bill and i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

>> each year, we gather and get information from our top officials and there are three officials at the top of the list, nuclear war, pandemics and climate change. those are the big three. i dare say he is far out of step of our leaders and top security officials. this couldn't be more efficient. instead of creating new burst bus, we are taking an existing framework by using our embassies and being more efficient and reducing more expense and reducing more bureaucracies in a way that which deal with this most important issue.

i urge my colleagues to swroin me and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: i would offer this. i have served in uniform and i know what the threats are. and i know having served long in the officer ranks the trouble that might and find woke officers and enlisted members and with this trip, i'm not one of them and i'm not go to go fall for it. we need to focus, our military and our national defense needs to focus on china, iran, terrorism, potentially these are real enemies.

climate change. climate change can be handled by other agencies and should be handled by other agencies. d.o.d. and men and women in uniform need to focus on defending our country from our enemies. not this. mr. speaker. with that, i yield the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is just an issue that's been reinforced by this administration, the past administration, the administration before it. so with all due respect, to a lot of other people in uniform, in combat positions, and in leadership positions, it's been a consistent string of continuous concern. mr. keating: and if you're worried about diverting d.o.d., this approach shares that responsibility. in fact, places this amendment -- this amendment alone places

it all with the department of state in that respect. so, again, some of the arguments you gave really are arguments that i have and i think some of the arguments you gave clearly reinforce the fact that this is an important amendment and should pass. i again urge my colleagues to support this and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has the only time remaining. time has expired now. all right. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. 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. >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: i request the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. 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 the question are postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 342 -- 392 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? jay allen mr. speaker, i have an -- ms. jayapal: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 392 in printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by ms. jayapal of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would direct the president to establish an office of climate resilience within the white house to coordinate climate resilience activities across all government agencies. as the climate crisis worsens,

american communities are in desperate need of an office to increase the resilience of our communities. as my colleagues well know, climate disasters are increasing in frequency and severity at an alarming rate. just last week a few of my colleagues and i visited yosemite national park where climate change continues to fuel larger, longer and more severe fires. in the last 14 months alone, 20% of giant trees in the sierra nevada were ki killed in wildfi. not long after we left a fire started burning that is still burning. last month the national oceanic and atmospheric administration reported that there were nine individual billion-dollar weather and climate events across the country during the first six months of the year alone. including severe drought, two tornado outbreaks and dangerous hail storms. last year damages from these severe weather events totaled

approximately $145 billion. these costs are felt by families across the country. these families lose their houses, all of their belongings, their livelihoods and sometimes their loved ones in these the disasters. as the climate crisis worsens, this harm will be exacerbated by the lack of climate resilience planning. there's immense work needed to make our communities resilient and safe to climate disasters. thankfully much work is under way. over 20 federal agencies have separate climate resilience action plans, but the united states lacks a robust, unified national climate resilience action plan and there's no overarching coordination between federal agencies on this very important security issue. as such, these disjointed efforts are likely performing duplicative work without maximizing the potential benefit. my amendment would establish an office of climate resilience to coordinate the various efforts currently going on across the federal government.

the office of climate resilience in the white house would leverage the expertise available from all sectors involved in climate resiliency, including the knowledge and lived experiences of front line communities. the office would improve current climate resilience efforts throughout various federal agencies and ensure that they are rooted in environmental justice as they protect and develop the climate resilience work force. the amendment will enable the united states to better prepare for and prevent future climate disasters, protect american families and our nation's security while mitigating the destruction that natural disasters wreak on our communities. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. perry: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. perry: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this amendment, as has been stated, establishes an office of

climate resilience in the white house and a climate resilience equity advisory board. including outside stakeholders to develop a national climate resilience action plan. what does outside stakeholders mean? to me what i hear is people that do what a lot of people do in washington, they grist, right? they're making money, they're making policy that makes their friends money. that's what that means. stakeholders should be the american people. outside stakeholders developing a national climate resilience action plan. now, quite honestly, this is, again, the national defense authorization act. how this amendment made it to the floor under this bill is quite honestly beyond comprehension. it's another level of federal bureaucracy in the name of climate that does nothing to improve the readiness of our military or support the war fighter. that's what we should be discussing this evening. that's what the underlying bill's about. the national defense

authorization act. has nothing to do -- this has nothing to do, again, with supporting the war fighter. nothing to do with increasing readiness. i remember filling out officer evaluation reports with all kinds of requirements. i had a paragraph i had to fill out on every officer. all kinds of requirements that i had to put a statement in about this or that. left me about one sentence to talk about their war fighting capability, each officer, about one sentence left in all the space of the requirements that i had to complete that had absolutely nothing to do with the service member's ability to do -- service members' ability to do their job in combat. so here we're going to add some more because we don't have enough of that. the folks responsible for developing a national -- a nationwide resiliency plan. would be those with emergency management experience if they were going to do it. but that's not required. we have outside stakeholders. i mean, it doesn't even belong in this bill, but even if it

did, it doesn't get anything right here. because we're not going to protect anybody. this is just another bureaucracy for activists on the left to impose these things on the united states people. we have real problems. what would be great is if we had a task force in the white house, since apparently the president can't handle it, to deal with the record inflation that we've got. it would be great if we had something sb in the white house, ma -- somebody in the white house, maybe a task force, to deal with fuel prices. we have our national leaders traveling all around the globe, thousands of miles away, to try and get other countries to pump more oil, refine more oil. we won't do it the in the -- do it in the united states of america. maybe that would help national security so we wouldn't have to go fight these foreign wars. but i guess we're going to do this. social justice climate fear morning. just creates more activist

entity within the federal government and fails to protect folks from disasters or actually protect the taxpayers, it will actually undermine resiliency efforts by focusing on socialist ideas that are failing, they're failing in this country right now. what we're seeing happening in our economy is a result of these type of things. we don't let the market work. we don't want the market, we're going to impose our will on the american people and say, you're not going to drive that kind of car, you're not going to use that kind of fuel, we know better than you do, we're washington, d.c. most of us have no experience in these industries that we're forcing on the american people. it undermines america's prosperity and promotes technologies that enrich our enemies. like china. rather than supporting the military. which is what this bill is supposed to be about. i urge my colleagues to oppose

this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: well, i don't understand why the other side is so distraught about an office of climate resilience. i'd love to hear my colleagues on the other side go and tell the people who have lost their homes in wildfires, who are flooded underneath enormous amounts of water that somehow that's not an interest of the federal government or even of our military to help protect. by the way, mill mare -- the military does go into many of these communities when we have these big natural disasters so it's absolutely about protecting the security of our country and the reality is it's the duty of the federal government to protect these people. now, you can make up all kinds of things about why this climate change is not real, but let me tell you, experts around the world believe this is a national security issue. they believe it is real. and they believe we need to address it. i'd like to yield a minute to my friend from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute.

mr. garamendi: the combination of the late hour, together with too much time to talk, led to really a foolish discussion from my colleague on the right. this issue is of paramount importance to the military. i'm just going to cite three -- four instances in which climate and resiliency have impacted the military. let's talk about an airbase, literally wiped off the map by a hurricane. would have been good to have some coordination. how about camp lejeune, another $2 billion problem, excessive rain and flood. let's talk about china lake, another $3 billion problem. we can go on and on. the fact of the matter is that climate changes are dramatically affecting the military and to have coordination from the white

house with the entire economy and the entire community of america focusing on this issue is a direct problem that must be addressed in the ndaa -- and the ndaa is the place to do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: i yield the balance of my to ito -- my time to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm somewhat baffled by this amendment. so, why would we for any reason decide that we're just going to look at climate resiliency? mr. speaker, we've had hurricanes, we've had floods, we've had forest fires, we've had tornadoes. winter storms, earthquakes, tsunamis. since the planet's been here. why would we decide that we're just going to compartmentalize climate resiliency and just look at that and ignore everything else? why would we decide we're going to choose to the bice -- to bias

only front line communities as opposed to those who are truly most vulnerable. i did this for a living for years and years. i'm glad this is comical. this is what i used to do. this might be the stupidest thing i've ever seen. why in the world, mr. speaker, would you compartmentalize different types of vulnerability? if you're concerned about climate, why don't you go and talk to this administration about the fact that under president trump emissions went down 2.5% a year and under president biden they've gone up 6.3% a year, and you negotiate and agreement with china where they get to increase emissions by 50% while everybody else cuts? this is just simply ill informed, doesn't make any sense at all and i urge rejection of this ill-conceived amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. 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 -- mr. perry: mr. speaker, 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 to amendment 395. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 395 printed in house 117-405 presented by ms. speier.

tivment the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. ms. speier: make this short and sweet because i captain believe for a minute we don't want to incentivize states the rights we have already accomplished in the survivors' bill of rights act that was passed in 2016. this amendment is based on a bipartisan bill offered by myself and kelly armstrong and introduced by the senate judiciary chuck grassley. it guaranteed for sexual assault survivors and they only applied to federal survivors.

and what what we are are debating is common sense. the right to have a rape kit, if you are raped, the right not to be charged for it or if the government destroys it if the right to have it preserved or 20 years whatever is shorter and right to be informed of the status and location of a rape kit. survivors are shocked to learn that they have been thrown out and can't find them and we have done it on the federal level and congress has recognize the rights should be good enough for those who have beg victims of state crimes. so, again, this is a simple amendment and bipartisan and it

is incentive advising or nanding or requiring and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserve s. mr. biggs: you know, the first thing i'm baffled that this is even germane to the national defense authorization act. i'm not saying this isn't good. passed you nam mousily. but it bribes states to enact and -- when i was the president of the arizona senate we didn't get dollars and get rape kits and making sure we started testing all the rape kits to go

after the bad guys. this bill of rights passed unanimously and not a controversial concept goer not at all. the concept is that states should do this, seriously. you think it's funny. laugh away. this has nothing to do with the national defense authorization act. states do this on their own when they have leadership in those states. this isn't something you blow federal dollars on or don't do it for because states will do it and many states are doing it. my state has been doing it for eight years now. this has nothing to do with

military readiness or what this bill is supposed to be doing. how is this germane to the underlying bill? i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time ms. speier: this is really astonishing to me as if servicemembers who are female, who are instate in which they do not have these beep fits should be second-class citizens. we have a parliamentarian who determines if it is germane. having this debate is iter because we have accomplished it is germane. imnot just legislating for the people of california but for the

entire country. that is my job and if there is a sexual assault victim and don't have the resources, we have done this on the federal level and offer some incentives and i don't see there is any difference all across this country. so imflam objectioned and not a laughing matter and sexual assault victims would like to know they have the same rights as those who are victims of federal crimes and have it paid for being told what the results are. it is common sense. i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman california reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: the rules committee waived that issue, not the parliamentarian. that is not a legitimate argument. if we talk about the substance of this, there are states that have taken the action that you are wanting to take and maybe that is where you should take the fight instead of the national defense authorization act. it is meant to fund the military to defend this country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: it was in short beings but this is pretty obvious. this does president take rocket

science. all we were are doing and maybe the gentleman should talk to senator grassley and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: this doesn't have anything to do with the national defense authorization act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the pip of the chair, the ayes and the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: request the yaps pursuant to section 3-3d1.

further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 399 printed in part arch, for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i rise to offer amendment number 399 as the designee. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in part 117-405 offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone and a member opposed each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i thank mr. smith

and for including several important amendments that seek justice for air mennians that were killed back in 2020. i rise today to discuss an important amendment that would prohibit the from exporting f-16 fighter jets and modernization kits to turkey unless it goes through a recertification process. it has a opposition to the sale since it was proposed by president erld juan. d.m. anand: collective good-bye allowing the sale to go to through would be a major mistake and bare minimum since russia's

and this destabilizing behavior to olympic finland and sweden to swroining nato. the turkish has of greek territory and planning that could environs counter lives and turkey has missile systems. and timely we captain ignore the regime against anticipate democratic. the sale of advanced fighter jets. they will lead to furtherer

death and destruction. they will have allowed to hide behind as a nato ally d.m. anand: flag dprant and timely timely to say enough is enough. and take the power out of his hands and i would like to thank chris pappas to hold the regime and present develop the sale moving forward. i urge you to vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? cease cease i stand in opposition to the pap ats are --

pappas amendment. this opportunity for us to speak deserves it to be placed within the house foreign affairs committee which has the jurisdiction in this matter which is important to the united states and to our friends from dprees and it is important to our friend in turkey, who stands as a nato ally and nato allies in the defense of the world that is important. it is important for us to note that conversation about this needs to take place in the foreign affairs committee that the chairman and ranking member are very able to discuss .report to congress was made to this

last prior administration that speaks to the what mr. pallone spoke about. this and they said, the united statesgovernment is not in a position to provide a list of con firmed of dpreeks territorial and this is what this amendment is about. grease claims that the territorial extends up to 10 territorial miles and up to six miles under international miles and coincides with the territorial and grease treats this. grease claims up to six nautical miles of tear tearial sea its

nays neighbors have not come upon those areas and thus turkey which stands next to these islands. . . with the war that's going on between russia and ukraine, naitdo need -- nato needs to be prepared to have the equipment that would be necessary. i believe this discussion, although i recognize it's made in order by the rules committee, should be placed directly within the foreign affairs committee. a discussion to resolve this between america's friends, turkiye and greece, and to depend upon them to be able to resolve this matter, not to do

this into the national defense authorization act, which does not have the jurisdiction in this matter. we should not invoke the united states military into this when in fact it should be something that is done by the state department. so i have great respect for the gentleman, mr. pallone. i have great respect for the rules committee which i sat on for 20 years. but this issue belongs upon what might be the foreign sales of assets that are military oriented and that jurisdiction is not in the armed services committee. so i would ask, stand in opposition, i would ask that the gentleman would withdraw this, his amendment, solely balessed upon a jurisdictional issue, the need for the united states of america, the need for nato and turkey as a very -- turkiye as a

very reliable member to be able to have those things that it would need. i appreciate the gentleman for hearing the argument tonight and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. let me say that i totally disagree with my colleague and i do respect him, as he knows. but we're talking about f-16's and f-16 upgrades. i don't see how you can say that is not within the jurisdiction of this committee and the ndaa bill. clearly we're talking about military weaponry here. but i would also point out that what we're seeing in this amendment is basically that -- saying in this amendment is basically that this sale or export should not go forward unless the president provides a certification to congress that such a transfer is in the national interest of the united states and includes a detailed description of concrete steps taken to ensure that such f-16's are not used by turkiye for repeated unauthorized territorial overflights of

greece. so what we're saying here is that we want some detailed analysis of what is going on here. and i have to be honest and say that i've heard the president and others in the administration expound upon the f-16 sales and the upgrades and say oh, this is a good idea. but the bottom line is they have not put forward any explanation of how this is in the national interest of the united states or any description of the problems that we face because of turkiye's continued aggression. whether it's in greece, whether it's in cyprus, whether it's in armenia, whether it's in other parts of the middle east, in syria, libya, list goes on. and that's all we're really saying in this amendment. that it's time -- as i said, enough is enough. and it is time for the administration to come forward and say, why are we considering this? why would you possibly do this? and that's what i think is totally appropriate to have this discussion here tonight and include this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to respond to the gentleman. first of all, the congressional review of all arms exports are done through the foreign affairs committee. not through the armed services. secondly, it is in america's best interest. one argument could be made, perhaps about ukraine, until russia attacked. it is now a war that the united states is funding to huge numbers of appropriations amounts. there's great concern about world, not just foot shortages, but the destabilization of that area of the world. we, the united states, as major supporter of the nato, count on all of the nato nations there that are a part of that to have the top flight not only equipment but the ability to

effectively avoid a war, further war by them working together. so i would say two points that the gentleman would raise. first, the armed services committee does not have the jurisdiction. and secondly, it is very much in the united states' best interest to make sure that turkiye has top-line f-16 fighters. i yield back my time. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: let me just say in closing, mr. speaker, that i understand what my colleague from texas is saying when he talks about why he might think it's in the interest of the united states to sell these weapons or these planes to turkiye. but -- and i respect your opinion. i don't agree. but i respect it. but we're asking that the administration put forth the reasons. that's what this amendment is all about. not your opinion, which is fine, but what is the administration's opinion? are they going to certify, are

they going to tell us why this is necessary? and that's what this is about. i urge support for the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. 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 not agreed to. the gentleman from texas -- 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 406 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition?

ms. ross, madam speaker -- ms. ross: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. ross of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. ross, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. pfas chemicals effect our drinking water, our crops, the air we breathe and the products we bring into our homes. as members know, pfas are a large class of chemicals that are highly persistent and mobile in the environment. they're commonly referred to as forever chemicals. pfas have contaminated more than 2,300 sites across 49 states, polluting the drinking water of an estimated 200 million americans, including thousands of households in my home state

of north carolina, and at fort bragg in north carolina. forever chemicals have been associated with a wide range of serious health effects, including a probable link with cancer, thyroid disease, lower fertility and more. over 500 pfas are included on the federal inventory of chemicals that can be used in commerce. but we know very little about what these chemicals are, where they are manufactured and used, and how the american people and our troops are being exposed. thankfully after years of indecision, congress took bipartisan action in the fiscal year 2020 ndaa, directing e.p.a. to complete a pfas reporting rule under the toxic substances control act. the rule requires e.p.a. to use its existing authority to obtain

information about all pfas manufactured since 2011, including their identity, where they are manufactured, total amounts produced, general categories of how they are used, and existing information on environmental and health effects. this information we lack for virtually all pfas that have been manufactured and released into the environment in our country. a critical blind spot that hinders our ability to understand the full scope of the challenge we face and how to protect the public and our troops. unfortunately e.p.a.'s proposed rule contains a significant flaw. it defines pfas far too narrowly, excluding hundreds of these forever chemicals, including some that have already been found in drinking water or that have been incinerated as waste around the country.

during the comment period, numerous stakeholders, including drinking water utility, state and environmental protection agencies, pfas scientists, 17 state attorneys general all urged e.p.a. to use a broader definition in the final rule, with many advocating for consensus definition recently adopted by the organization of economic cooperation and development. a reporting rule that fails to capture the full universe of pfas will deprive e.p.a., congress, the states and the public of information necessary to address the affect of pfas effectively and efficiently. my bipartisan amendment with respective mace directs e.p.a. to use a simple definition of pfas, one that is consistent with the international definition. a final pfas reporting rule using the definition in our amendment will ensure that we have the full picture of the

nature and extent of the pfas effects, enabling congress and the administration to formulate an effective plan of action to address these problems. mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as i said, i rise in opposition to the ross amendment and i urge my colleagues to join me. this amendment would be an implementation nightmare for the e.p.a. and the regulated stakeholders would have no choice but to comply or try to comply. mr. johnson: the current provisions of the toxic substances control act require the e.p.a. to issue final regulations compelling anyone who manufactured pfas back to 2011 to report detailed

information about the chemical and its manufacturer to the e.p.a. now, last fall the e.p.a. already proposed regulations to implement section 8-a-7 and began taking public comment on it the proposed regulation -- on it. the proposed regulation used the definition of pfas that is structural and the agency believes it will capture 1,364 pfas chemicals. the ross amendment would massively expand the e.p.a.'s definition of pfas to any pfas containing at least one fully floor nateed -- florinated carbon atom. just going off the e.p.a.'s master list of pfas, the number of pfas covered could jump from slightly over 1,300 to more than 12,000. that's a 10-fold increase. in addition, the ross amendment

makes no changes to the deadline the e.p.a. must issue these regulations. meaning the e.p.a. will have to scrap its current rulemaking and expedite a new one that gives very little opportunity for public input. furthermore, under this amendment, the universe of new parties that would need to report is unknown and could be huge. and because of the retroactive nature of the reporting requirement, there may not be complete records to fulfill the amendment's broad reporting mandate. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to make it clear that this is a reporting rule. it is not a regulation. it's more like a law requiring labeling on food and packaging and it gives the public information about chemicals that affect their health.

and our water resource agencies are asking for this. we are trying to clean up some of the effects. in north carolina we are seeing this in the cape fear river. again, it is affecting the health of our people and our troops. and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i, like so many other amendments that i've heard here tonight, this is one that really befuddles me that it's in the ndaa. this is something that should be adjudicated in the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee, not something that we should be trying to tag onto the ndaa. this amendment simply tries to do too much too fast and too soon. it dispatches the scientific assessment of the agency about how to address it and disregards the public's input on the process. i urge a no vote on the ross

amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. ross: mr. speaker, it is clear that the public in the comment period has said that we need more information in a more -- and a more robust definition. it also belongs in the ndaa because it originated in the 2020 it has affected troops in north carolina particularly to the cape fear river. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the previous question is ordered on the amendment. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid

upon the table. now in order to consider amendment number 410 printed in part a of house 117-405, for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? good gar i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 410 bripted in house 117 hive 405 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr.garamendi: this amendment,

216 is co-sponsored by ms. jacobs of california and ms. lofgren of california and support for firefighting act. and we don't have enough firefighters and the military can play an important and vital role in fighting fires. this waives for fema and the federal lapt management and the national parks to reimburse for costs incurred by the military for disastrous response for major fires. the economy act of 1933, force is one government agency requesting to essentially sign a

blank check for an unknown amount of money before they know the full scope of services that may be required. this full reimbursement does not cost the taxpayers any extra money but an accounting between one agency or another. and we heard about the department of defense to keep its books straight and federal agency are focusing on firefighting and using every available resource and not to have to worry about the pencil pushing back and forth and what may be a significant amount of mop unknown at the outset. it is pretty simple and make

sure. and appear agency that might need help from the military might not ask for it when they wound up with a serious account to be filled. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: this would be support tore other federal agencies for firefighting or disaster i support a but d.o.d. does not need to be the piggy bank. it has bill yops of dollars. this amendment would be detrimental by taking away

funds. and i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from california. mr.garamendi: enough has been said and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i urge a no vote. pursuant to house resolution 1224, vote is on amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agree to, mr. gohmert: i request yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further questions on this is postponed.

the chair understands that amendment number 413 will not be offered at this time. the chair understands that amendment 415 will not be offered at this time. it is now in order to consider amendment number 426 printed in part a117-405. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 426 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

lapping language i yield myself such time as i may consume. in this era of great competition we are in a race for top talent and our continued military is on break through and if the seeing of defense determines it is in the national interest, it would allow a pathway to citizenship for the best talent to work in and our defense research projects. we want the brightest minds in the world working for us and this amendment helps us in that race and we faced this challenge before during the consideration of fiscal year 2022, my

amendment was passed on the floor and i hope we do it again. the u.s. has 5%. and the majority will be borne outside the u.s. borders. we enjoy innovative private sectors in physicallics and by of technology and our drive this talent into the arms of our competitors. so we face intense competition from other countries and in a world where a small group can upend the status quo, puts us in danger rather than leading them.

so my amendment is modeled after a 148 law granting the direct tore of the c.i.a. to obtain residency that is in the essential to the furtherance of national intelligence missions. today, the secretary of defense has to researchers with tech any can or scientific skills. under this amendment, the secretary of defense willing have a process to select the top 10 scientists with technical expertise that will align with the national defense strategy and the national defense and science technology and recommend to department ofhomeland security to processing and vetting. it is in our interests not om to

have these research scientists wrking on our behalf and this talent working for our and this has passed in 2022 and so i encourage to ensure our military and technology superiority and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: joort. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized >> this amendment allows to

work. without a clear provision forbidding from hostile regimes, we should oppose. this has produced the illegal mass migration. they took power and deliberate releases, the democrats have allowed an illegal population larminger than the entire population of west virginia. we have and present heppedded scores and many more have gotten in as the border patrol. and their surrender to the tall pan released #,000 terrorists. one of those detonated a bomb.

we have no other idea where the other 5,000 plus are today and we know where they are. the security of the united states is not high on the democrat list of concerns. ip sted of addressing this crisis they have pursued this crisis to encourage legal and illegal and this amendment should concern us all. our breakthroughs, the manhattan project comes to mind and i do not trust this administration to know or even care about the difference. china, freak, is so intent that

the trump administration had to suspend students and researchers. they found peoples' republic of china is in acquiring technologies to bowls tear their military. students and researchers studying beyond the level are at high risk being exploited. the department ofhomeland security warned us in 2020 that the the nationals will support and cooperate with state intelligence work. the idea came in at lease with artificial. so clearly, the green cards would go to chinese nationals.

we should not make it easy to make it access or other technical technologies. our new woke department of defense does not have a program. the department of defense supported and encouraged, the vital to the national the program through which foreign analysis were able to enlist. the obama administration was forced to halt this program that to enlist in the military. the department of defense allowed chinese spice to enlist in the military.

the ties to china and chinese and this amendment becomes most disturbing and i urge the house to oppose it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanreserves the balance of his the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. we have before us a concept that already exists in law, that already has the authority with the grecter of the -- director of the c.i.a. this bill before us would allow this authority to be exercised by the secretary of defense for only 10 individuals, i should say, and it waves no special

vetting or security background checks. there would be thorough background checks before any pathway to citizenship would be given. so at this point i have no further speakers and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the record speaks for itself. no concern for the dire national security implications of their open borders policy, no concern for the infiltration of hostile foreign agents into our military, no concern for the ingratiation of foreign agents into our legislative and executive branches. but americans should be concerned. mr. mcclintock: they should be very concerned. and until there's a change in the attitude of the ruling democrats toward our national safety, our security, and our sovereignty, amendments like this should be utterly rejected. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: there would be no passes given. it would be thorough, background checks that would occur. experts agree that we must now keep the brightest minds working on our behalf or we risk ceding the commercial benefits of technological development, as well as sacrificing our military's technological advantage. our adversaries are focusing on closing the capability gap and critical technologies and we must respond. they are not standing still. we need to continue to keep the technological edge that we enjoy here in our country and i urge the support of 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 gentleman from rhode island. 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 california. mr. mcclintock: on that 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. the chair understands that amendment number 437 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment number 440 will not be offered at this time. the chair understands that amendment number 444 will not be offered at this time. the chair understands that amendment number 446 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 447 printed in part a of house report 117-405.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 447 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 now 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 passed the house last year by a unanimous voice vote. the act of 1878 currently prohibits the army and air force from enforcing u.s. laws without authorization by the constitution or congress. today i offer an amendment to strengthen that existing law to include the marines, the navy, the federalized national guard

and reserve components. my amendment would also prohibit the use of evidence unlawfully obtained by or with the assistance of the military in a court of law or other legal proceedings. put plainly, it would prevent any president of either party from unlawfully using the military as a domestic police force. and it would ensure that evidence obtained because of unlawful acts isn't used against any american. i would hope that this is a proposition that both parties can support. last year, as i said, this amendment passed by voice vote. and with broad support. however, this year conspiracy theorists, including some who served in this body when this amendment was passed previously, have been ask -- have announced their opposition. it's fair to say they were for it before they were against it. you may hear some of these conspiracy theories this evening. so let me be very clear. this amendment has one goal, to prevent any president from unlawfully using our nation's armed forces against americans

exercising their constitutionally protected rights. last year my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't want evidence obtained illegally by the military to be used against people. this year, well, we will see. this amendment will ensure the government cannot use evidence obtained by the military if acting unlawfully and allow us to better protect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our constitution. surely we can all agree on that. i urge a yes vote 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 arizona seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. no one in this body believes that the united states military should be engaged in carrying out domestic policy on united states soil. mr. biggs: we already have laws that prohibit that. this amendment, however, would prohibit evidence obtained by the military in violation of the act to be used in court or other legal proceedings.

this bill was in committee this year. last year it was debated on the floor. this amendment stems from legislation that representative schiff introduced in response to rumors that president trump was considering sending in the military to help quell the violence in democrat-run cities during the summer of 2020. the military was never sent in. so this amendment is basically a solution in search of a problem. the implications of this amendment are also unclear. we currently have a crisis on our southern border. a crisis that democrats continue to ignore and it's continually getting worse. we literally have about 8,000 to 10,000 people a day being encountered on the border and then another 1,000 or more a day who are actually getting into the country as gotaways.

some have suggested that military could be sent down there to help stop this invasion. the question is, though, what happens if the situation at the southwest border becomes even more dire and indeed members of the military are sent in to help, and while helping, providing support, they obtain evidence of trafficking or smuggling? human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. will that be -- will that evidence be excluded? this is an issue that needs to go through regular order where the committees of jurisdiction can hold hearings and fully explore all possible consequences. that hasn't happened here. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the speaker. first of all, my colleague says that we already have laws against the military unlawfully

engaging in the enforcement of domestic policy. we only have laws against certain branches of the military doing that. this bill would expand that to any branch of the military. so it's not covered by existing law. what's more, i'm rather struck by the argument i hear against this amendment that if the military engages in unlawful activity, it appears they're ok with using that unlawfully obtained evidence in a court of law. that wouldn't be allowed in any criminal proceeding, if law enforcement obtained evidence unlawfully. it shouldn't be allowed if the military obtains evidence unlawfully. and so the only thing that has changed from last year when this passed on a unanimous voice vote to this year is apparently this year some of my colleagues are willing to have the military enforce domestic policy in violation of the law and use the fruits of that illegal action

against american citizens. i don't think that's right. i urge support of this amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. i find it interesting, nobody on this side mentioned evidence adduced from unlawful activities should be admitted. that's words as so often happens with my colleague that are being imputed. no. no. i specifically said legal activity. i specifically said if the military is sent down to the border to help. there was no imptation that that would be illegal conduct. what i said was that they obtained evidence of traffickerring or -- trafficking or smuggling while serving down at the southwest border. if that's legal conduct, and they encountered evidence of trafficking or smuggling, my querrey was, should that not be

used -- should that not be permitted as evidence? and the reality of it is, it should be used for evidence. when we talk about law, for instance criminal law, if a police officer engages in criminal conduct to obtain evidence, that evidence is suppressed. including additional evidence which is considered the fruit of the poisonous tree. the question here, and the reason that i said this needs to go back for regular order, is what do you do when you are involved in legal conduct and you happen upon evidence of smuggling or trafficking? that's the real issue here. but the gentleman, who has already yielded his time and now wishes to take my time to explain, the reality is he knows. this bill or his amendment needs

to go back for regular order, for additional debate to determine all the consequences so when legal conduct produces or induces evidence of smuggling or trafficking, that's why i oppose this amendment. i urge my colleagues to do the same 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. the amendment is agreed to. 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 448 precipitationed in part a of house report -- printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 448 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. green of texas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. green: thank you. mr. speaker, today i rise in strong support of reforming the

disaster recovery act, which i have submitted as an amendment, number 448, to the national defense authorization act. this amendment would permanently authorize the community development block grant disaster recovery program which provides states, tribes and communities with flexible long-term recovery resources needed to rebuild affordable housing and infrastructure after a disaster. the amendment also provides important safeguards and tools to help ensure that federal disaster recovery efforts reach all impacted households, including the lowest income and most marginalized survivors who are often hardest hit by disasters and have the fewest resources to recover. the amendment also provides important safeguards and tools to help ensure that federal disaster recovery efforts reach

all impacted households in the future, including the lowest income and most marginalized survivors. these measures would help to prevent the what happened in texas in the aftermath of hurricane harvey and more than four years after the disaster, relief funds have not filtered down to the hands of people who need them. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from louisiana? mr. graves: i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. speaker, i got to tell you coming from a disaster-proand state that anyone would propose an amendment like this.

1:15-a.m. to codify a process that has done nothing but revictimmize in the aftermath of a hurricane. in 2016, this congress provided 1. billion. $1.7 billion trying to help out those who were trying to get money in their hands and six years later, six years later, one-third of those funds to the disaster victims and $500 million have been paid to the contractors. hod is not a disaster agency. look at the the reports. all you have is this these

agencies that aren't coordinated and hod doesn't have disaster experience. this is a flawed approach d.m. anand: in fact, in this legislation that codifies, it says that you have to help those in poverty. what if they are not impacted but requires they are first helped. what we need to be doing is getting assistance in the hands that need help not in the situation that the government accountability office said the funds said four years prior that less than 80% of the money had been allocated. this agency is the wrong agency and complete failure and revictim mysing disaster and i

urge opposition to this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from texas, mr. green is recognized. mr. green: i yield 1 minutes to ms. garcia. ms. garcia: i thank my friend and colleague for his leadership for this very important amendment and i am not shocked and i am pleased. this is desperately needed and would authorize the disaster recovery program. this provides states and communities like mine in houston with flexible recovery resources

with infrastructure. this amendment would that this goes to the most deserving communities those hit hardest and build safeguards and funds are not diverted. further, it reforms recovery and protocol to ensure and oversight and discovery and disaster recovery and protects civil rights and fair housing and supports mitigation efforts. mr. green and my hometown of hup is no stranger to disasters and the folks on the other side of the aisle don't want the dollars, we will accept them in houston because we get hit every year and we get hard.

so again, i urge support of this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: mr. speaker, listening to the gentlelady talk about this amendment, it clearly, there is a divide between what she is expressing and what this amendment actually does and she said this would get money in the hands of those impacted. to the contrary. it requires that those. it doesn't matter if they have been impacted and to determine if they are most impacted.

this amendment codifies a low and moderate income requirement that doesn't take into and the impact to households but not individuals but if you are in some cases, only families are households. the bottom line, we have been through this program over and over and over again. i'm completely shocked that this sponsor, in 2019 nearly drawn down $18 million. this is after harvey and maria, in 2019 after the funds vn appropriated, om one million have drawn down. and this agency is not capable of doing anything other than

revictim mysing. it is the wrong agency and wrong program and all it's going to do is memorialize or codify which is funding a bureaucracy and contractors that simply not helping those getting back on the feet. i reserve. mr. green: my dear colleagues and friends whom i have and i was born in new orleans, louisiana and i understand the state and the people but we have a difference of which committee should have jurisdiction. i have been on the financial services committee, hod. he sits on transportation.

he wants jurisdiction. he is not going to get it. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: this is a jurisdictional desire to be involved in disa terse and the transportation has jurisdiction over fema and we have jurisdiction over disasters and what happens when you have folks who don't have ex per test d.m. anand: revice timing timize and fund contractors and not get the funds in the hands of folks. i urge rejection of this amendment and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: jasht. mr. green: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: minute and a half. mr. green: plea speaker, this bill requires the secretary of hod to the most unless the secretary determines there ace compelling need to do otherwise. this bill requires h.u.d. to ensure that states require the activities that low and moderate

victims and prepare for future disasters, this is a bill that is on the floor. the wish list is not. 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 texas. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and without objection -- >> request a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-smp, the yeas and nays are ordered further proceedings are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 451.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to offer amendment 45 # as the designee of mr. mallin nows ky. the clerk: offered by mr. schiff of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes mr. schiff. mr. schiff: i speak in amendment 451. before i do, i'm glad to vermont opportunity to respond on my previous amendment regarding the law. my colleagues what if is obtained lawfully.

he did not want to recognize me and the amendment reads. and any information object taped by or with the assistance of the member of in violation of 1385 of title 18 shall not be leafed in evidence and that is the pertinent part. and the simple question. that is not impacted and om in case that the military is used unlawfully that it would be excluded that the poisonous tree. it ought to be true when the let me turn to amendment 451. this is a simple and

straightforward proposition and requires the review of actions in brazil. this is not going to come out of the plus but including number one, the haven't repeated a false heap hood. the events suggested that they should be fed to a room where they count the votes. number two, senior generals have publicly questioned the integrity of the election. number three, a formal complaint to authorities expressing concerns about the election and generals are getting involved. number four, thousands of military officers have been appointed to run the government. 11 officers and the cabinet and

national oil company are well to maintain and spapped the military's influence and they are advocating much military laws that would eliminate and these are concerning signs and we must be vying lapt to in the largest country in latin america. i hope my colleagues with support this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time who seeks time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i raise time in opposition ..

>> yp if you are planning on cutting hogs. some of the folks have complained. brazil have secured a relationship. countering narcotics trafficking including narcotics destined for the united states, the venezuelan regime's destabilizing activities. brazil's military was one of the only latin american forces to join allied operations during the second world war. a conflict in which my father took part in and my uncle lost his life. this shortsighted amendment fails to recognize our partnership and addressing our

national interests and regional stability. it unnecessarily denigrates the reputation of one of three major non-nato allies in latin america. it also threatens to curtail our long history of security cooperation, including implementation of d.o.d.'s peace and security initiative. mr. burchett: the u.s. military has long worked with their brazilian counterparts to address the regional defense matters premised on respect for democracy and human rights. we must look for ways of broadening this extensive bilateral eald agenda to reach mutually beneficial outcomes. of course i serve on the foreign affairs committee and i wonder why on earth we have not have considered that in that committee, mr. speaker. at this late hour. where it's very cold. very cold. mr. speaker, i yield back my time to further bring the other party to its knees on this all-important issue.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to say that i am in complete agreement with my colleague about the cold. but i am not in agreement about the amendment. mr. speaker, there is a profound concern that we all ought to share, that the president may be preparing his own big lie about the brazilian elections. mr. schiff: and that he may bring the military in to help propagate a big lie about fraud in the elections in brazil. he seems to be laying the foundation for making such a claim. it would be compounding of the tragedy we experienced in this country if america's chief export to brazil turned out to be a big lie and how to undermine integrity and faith in our elections and institutions.

this is a sense of congress that whatever findings are made about military interventions in the elections ought to be assessed in terms of whether the clause has been triggered. that is of course the annual appropriations clause that prohibits u.s. assistance to countries where a kowp has taken place -- coup has taken place. in light of the warring signs in brazil, i urge supporting the amendment and with that 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. the amendment is agreed to. mr. burchett: to further bring

the democrat party to their knees, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 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 454. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 454 printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: this amendment is, this bipartisan amendment, is preventing the act which was reported from the house committee on oversight and reform and which also passed the house as title 12 of the protecting our democracy act. the preventing it is prompted by attempts to eliminate expertise and ackman from our civilian civil service. since the inception of the civil service in 1883, administrations have acted to create formal exceptions to the competitive service only five times. these accepted service -- excepted service categories are created for limited positions that require unique hiring or operating rules like for positions of short-term political nature, positions in remote areas, or where there's a critical technical hiring need so great the competitive civil

service cannot meet the need. in these limited cases, individuals hired into positions classified in excepted service are not vested with certain civil service appeal rights because they've not undergone the required competitive hiring process. on october 21, 2020, the then-president signed executive order 13957 to create a six and broad excepted service schedule, a new schedule, schedule f. this order undermined the merit system principles of our federal work force by requiring agency heads to reclassify broadly policy determining, policymaking or policy advocating positions to a newly created schedule f category, removing the appeal rights of affected federal employees. one agency alone, the office of management and budget, planned

to reclassify 400 positions to schedule f. that's 80% of its work force. on january 22, 2021, as one of the president's first executive orders, executive order 1403, revoked the creation of schedule f. the danger remains, however, that a few president -- future president could attempt to erode the merit system principles, over 140 years old, by resurrecting something similar to a schedule f. the preventing of it stems from a bipartisan provision that would freeze federal employees' reclassifications to the five existing excepted service schedules in use prior to fiscal year 2021. this amendment preserves congressional roles and prerogatives in determining which federal employees are vinnested with the protections and which are not. future administrations would simply be required to come to

congress for statutory authority before making sweeping changes to the federal work force. this amendment seeks to preserve core principles of our civil service, the expertise and not political loyalty of our work force. the provision is endorsed by the american federation of government employees, the national treasury employees' union, the employees association, the senior executive association, the national federation of federal employees and many of the unions of good government groups and i'm proud this bipartisan amendment is co-responsed by my republican friend from pennsylvania, brian fitzpatrick. and i urge adoption and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment seeks to -- that

my friend has brought up, seeks to include an attempt to remove something that is very needed and necessary among civil service and, mr. connolly, this amendment, coming within the ndaa, is a poor attempt at reversing something that is important to remain. mr. hice: the legislation was written to override president trump's executive order, 13957, as has been mentioned, which was entitled creating schedule f, in the excepted service and i supported president trump's order in that regard. but it guaranteed, and this is the issue, that civil servants in policymaking roles could not be held accountable when they were subordinate to the president and members of the president's administration.

why in the world would we not want there to be accountability when there is ininsubordination? that just is common sense. it's common sense that we have the ability to stand up when people are opposing or being subordinate -- insubordinate. the bottom line is that the voters elect the president. and then the president nominates administration officials to implement the policies that the voters are elected the president to implement. and when career officials resist implementing those mandates, then they are in effect resisting the voters. this is, to me, at the heart of this whole issue right here. to resist the president's orders that have been elected by the

voters is unacceptable. and we need the means to hold those individuals accountable. america is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. it's not a government in which career bureaucrats dictate the way things will go, particularly when they are doing so in direct opposition to the will of the president, regardless of which party is represented in the white house. my colleague, mr. connolly, is of the view that president trump's order somehow reinstated a 19th century style political pat ronage system but that's sorely mistaken. president trump did not create schedule f to reinstate the pat ronage system. if he wanted to do that he could have converted schedule f employees to at-will employees that schedule c has.

and that's not what he did. president trump's orders simply made it easier to discipline or remove civil servants in policymaking roles who actively worked to undermine the policies of their politically accountable superiors. it also made it easier to deal with just plain poor performers. who among us really don't want to deal with poor performers? look, the executive order originally avoided meddling with senior executive service individuals and preserve protections for nonpolicy-related civil service positions. in fact, those are the very types of positions that were the original object of the 19th century civil service reforms that eliminated the patronage system. but regardless of one's view of schedule f, this amendment

simply is not needed, in spite of the fact that president biden reversed it. this amendment is not needed. it is not wise. the personnel reforms president trump's order attempted have been sorely needed and should not be precluded from any future administration as well. and so with that i urge my colleagues 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 virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i reserve and i'm prepared to close once my friend has closed. mr. hice: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, my friend from georgia has it all wrong. he's right about the will of the people. but the will of the people do not elect a tyrant, a dictator

or a king. they elect a president to preside. who is subject to the careful checks and balances of the constitution of the united states. for 140 years this congress, after passing the pendleton act, has insisted that our civil service should not be partisan. in fact, we passed the hatch act to regulate their political activities, unlike any other american, to ensure that the american people get fair and unbiased and bipartisan service from their public servants. schedule f proposed by the previous president upturned that. and would, if it had been implemented fully, politicized the civil service in an unprecedented way that would have returned us to the spoil system of the 19th century. that's what we're doing here. and the second thing we're

doing, which my friend may or may not care about, but many of us do, is to reassert the role of congress irrespective of who is in the white house. any president must come to this body before he or she proposes to create a new cabinet office or dissolve an existing one. or change that's what this simpe amendment does. and i urge its adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by amendment the gentleman from virginia. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> i rerequest the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this

amendment is postponed. it is now in order to consider number # 55 printed in part a of 11 i-405. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 455 printed in part by mr. neguse of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado, mr. neguse and a member op on owes. will each control. mr. neguse: mr. speaker, i rise today or this morning in support of this amendment offered by chairman grijalva and to at the

text of two bills the colorado recreation economy act and h.r. 1052 the grand canyon. they have passed the house with bipartisan support and each have passed this chamber and last year and the year before that. they would protect lob lands and cultural lands and liveable environment. my bill would consist of four titles for over a decade and one is the camp hail and this the first ever national in in honor

of the legacy of the 10th and the mountains of colorado where they received the training to defeat the germany during world war ii. and there are huts connected by trails. and the they their pursuit and self-reliance of the outdoors and this designation that future generations can learn about the patriots in the 10th mountain division. we believe this will to support it. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> i claim time in opposition to

the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: jafgd for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the neguse amendment anymore 455. this would ban development over 1. # million in northern arizona and colorado. it will kill jobs and threat yep our national security by making us more dependant. i believe that we would even -- i can't believe we would add it atlanta inflation and gas prices at $5 .00. this nd arch arch is to enhance our national security not weeken it. and instead, democrats are

adding this amendment hoping we wouldn't notice. this permanently withdraws uranium mining and this is supplying less than 1%. let me say that, less than 1% to power our neat. in 01, roughly half of our uranium supply and includeic russia and uzbekistan d.m. anand: allies have been accounting less and less of this supply dropping from # 1% to 39% in 2019. pathsing this will play to weaken our independence. opponents this is necessary.

nothing could be further from the. nobody is mining in the grand canyon. nobody will mine in the grand canyon and in the future, never. there are buffer zones in place. and unform, this continues to the disturbing trend and yesterday at this point, democrats to permanently withdraw in northern minnesota nickel reserves and koa baltimore and 75 of our platinum reserves and i urge my colleagues to not vote for this the gentleman has three minutes

remaining. >> i have a lot of respect. we could have a date and hope to re-evaluate because he knows that these amendment come as no surprise and have passed and debated and part of the rules committee and that is not our choice that this debate is happening at 1:30 in the morning. and with respect to uranium mining i'm glad to here there shy no mining in the grand canyon and i encourage you to vote for this bill by virtue of proposing this bill as the ranking member as the full

member knows the withdrawal covers less than 1%, 1% of known u.s. uranium reserves. i believe we could meet our uranium needs in the united states without mining the grand canyon, a nationalmon you metropolitan. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from arkansas. >> i yield 2:15 to mrs. boebert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is. mrs.boebert: i rise in opposition to amendment 455 .almost 2 a.m. and most america caps and china they are finishing up with lunch and we

are he here on the floor trying to sneak inland grabs. this will lock up 400 with no regard to the terrible consequences to the constituents of colorado's third dwict d.m. anand: on nearly #00,000 acres. and they are paying and shipping our oil reserves to the communist, democrats here in the house want to lock up oil and gas never to be seen. 55% of the land impacted are in my district. and the farm bureaus to the grand junks all oppose the core act. it ticks the american and g.o.p.

will have the the senate rejected this bhil outright because the american people don't want it. a we passed this toll remove this from the final passage. and the core act threatened to threaten wildfires and other provisions that restrict federal agencies' ability to actively restrict their land are we to watch more and more of our state because that's what they legislation would do and this bill is no competition. i do believe my colleagues from colorado wants cleaner air and cleaner water and help me in managing our and want to be good

stewards of the good land we have beep given, and i yield back. i the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. >> how much time do we have remaining? >> the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. >> the gentleman might have 17 seconds. >> well, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman would like to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado closes. >> in conclusion i urge my colleagues to bolster our

national security and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. neguse: i will save it to the next ranking member. my district has been the epicenter in colorado, two of the largest happened in the 2nd congressional district and i'm the co-chair of the wildfire caucus with john curtis out of utah and worked closely and passed a bipartisan law as well as the president signing it and billions of dollars to doing that mitigation work that is happening in colorado thanks to that bill.

13 of my colleagues chose to join you us. look, we can disagree about the contours of this particular bill but what we captain disagree are the facts, gun ison, eagle county, city of aspen, carbondale, telluride, city after city, goos the great state of and vast majority support it, too. and i ask my colleagues to support it. >> pursuant to house resolution 1224. and the question is on the

amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it -- the gentleman from arkansas. >> i request the yeas and nays pursuant to section 3-1, the yeas and nays are ordered. further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now to consider amendment number 456. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? ms. degette: i have even amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 456 printed in house report 117-407 offered by ms. degette of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair recognizes the jom colorado. ms. degette: i rise in support of my amendment to add the first six titles of protecting wilderness and public lands act and to protect to the n dmp arch a bill. this amendment wilt preserve 1.6 million across colorado, wax and new mexico and add more than 1,000 miles to the national and system. this is about protecting our economy, our way of life, and ensuring our nation's top military pilots have the pace they -- space they need to train. among the areas protect under this measure are some of our nation's most important military

training grounds, including the high altitude aviation training sites in colorado where some of our nation's most elite helicopter pilots train to take on some of the harshest environments anywhere on this planet. the areas to be protected under this amendment also play a key role in combating the climate crisis which the pentagon itself has deemed a preeminent threat to our national security. the designations in this bill were not drawn from a hat. they are the product of decades of work and that's why this amendment has widespread support from every single area that is included in this bill. and that's why this chamber has taken steps to pass it not once, not twice, but four times now in just the past two years alone. including as a part of the last two years of ndaa bills. taking on the fight against

climate crisis and ensuring our nation's military pilots have the space they need to train for some of the world's most difficult environments is something all of us should be behind. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume and i rise in opposition to the degette amendment number 456. this amendment would add the text of the so-called protecting america's wilderness and public lands act, which would actually damage our environment and kill jobs in rural america and, by the way, i don't understand really what this bill has to do with defense and why it gets made in order for the ndaa. mr. westerman: this amendment creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and designates over 1,200 miles of scenic and

recreational rivers. for perspective, the wilderness designated in this bill is the same size as president biden's home state of delaware. just days ago we reached the ominous mark of over five million acres burned nationwide. this is double the 10-year average and nearly three times the amount of acreage that were burned at this point last year. one fire that's largely krbilitied to this total is -- contributed to this total is the hermit's peak fire which is still burning into new mexico tonight. this fire, which is the largest in new mexico state history, has burned over 340,000 acres and racked up $278 million in fire suppression costs. this fire started in the pecos wilderness area which has not been properly managed and has significant fuel loads. instead of this being a wakeup call, congressional democrats are trying to double down on the failed strategy of locking up lands and throwing away the key less than 100 miles from where the fire is currently burning. creating new wilderness doesn't just mean that catastrophic

wildfires will be more likely. it means that these fires will also be more severe and put our brave wildland fire fighters into harm's way. many of these areas are too dangerous and burn too intensely to send firefighters in to fight. in contrast, areas that have previously received treatments are often places identified by firefighters as areas they can enter to start attacking a fire safely. we have a problem on our national forest. it is not going to be solved with hand saws and shovels. now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of forest service land is in desperate need of treatment. this bill also designates lands as wilderness in the urban interface. this is a matter of life and death. therefore i urge my colleagues 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 gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: i continue to reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield two minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlelady from colorado, mrs. boebert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for two minutes and 15 seconds. mrs. boebert: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition of amendment 456, an amendment that would add the protecting america's wilderness and public lands act into this year's ndaa. this bill would add nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production. democrats already locked down our businesses, they locked down our churches, locked down or schools, but that wasn't disastrous enough. now they want to lock down our public lands. approximately 550,000 of those 1.5 million acres that will be locked up by these new wilderness designations are in my district. over 55% of colorado's third congressional district is already federal land.

the last thing that communities in my district need is further restrictions imposed by government limiting what they can do on public lands. people back home impacted by this lands package have raised significant concerns ranging from the loss of recreation, the elimination of multiple use of the land and the overall threat to local rural economies. however, one of the biggest concerns in the western states is the increased threat of disastrous wildfires that will result from the new wilderness designation and other land grabs in this bill. wilderness is the most restrictive land use designation possible. it prevents active management in our forests, which is critical to prevent catastrophic wildfires. placing my district under lock and key will prevent all americans from being able to access those lands and experience our majestic purple

mountains firsthand. i've also visited the facility in eagle county and i've talked to the pilots, our military pilots, who would actually lose some of their land that they currently train over. this is a national security threat. they need that land to be able to train as they protect our country. and then of course the 1,200 miles of river that would be designated wild and scenic, well, that's just not fair. that's in my district and i'm not going to the gentlewoman's district and designating the 16th street mall wild and scenic but i can we all agree it's pretty wilderness down there. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: i'm prepared to close. i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a place and a time to debate wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers but i don't

think the ndaa is the place for that. in conclude, i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will harm our environment and do nothing to improve our national security. i encourage a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: so, mr. speaker, let me just clear up a few of the pieces of misinformation that have come out about this bill tonight. the first one is that the high altitude training i talked about, which is used by the military is not supported by pilots. actually, the colorado national guard has issued a statement of support of this legislation because we do protect those training areas and it's very important, it's been important ever since afghanistan to do that. the second thing i want to talk about is that all of the economic studies have shown that more wilderness actually creates

more jobs. and so for people who are in rural communities, in remote areas, when there's wilderness around them, the growing and new economy in the west is for more jobs in recreation and other industries. and last but not least, the portion of this bill that's in my state of colorado, the colorado wilderness act, which is my bill, it's about 660,000 acres. and those acres are almost all currently wilderness study areas. they are all, all the wilderness study areas, are currently managed by the b.l.m. as if they are wilderness. so these claims that are being made about there's going to be new fires, there's going to be new problems, that's simply not true. we're taking something that has been a reality in those areas for 40 years and simply making it permanent so that our children and our grandchildren

can enjoy those wonderful areas, so that we can stimulate the recreation economy and so that we can protect those lands for preservation and for helping to address the climate issue. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. pursuant to house resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. 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 arkansas. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, 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 poaf opponented -- postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 461 printed in part a of house report 117-405. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 461. printed in part a of house report 117-405 offered by mr. evans of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1224, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. evans, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. mr. evans: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer my amendment, number 461,

re-authorize the delaware rever basin restoration program. this program was established through the delaware river basin conservation act passed by congress bipartisanly in 2016. this program provides invaluable support through technical and grant assistance to projects in the delaware valley basin -- delaware river basin. one recipient among many is the delaware val river basin grant, it protects the delaware river. this commission, which is made up of state governors, as well as the commander of the u.s. army engineers north atlantic division, has been a major player in protecting health and safety all over seven million americans spread over 13,000 square miles since 1961. the commission utilizes grants administered to programs for a

variety of projects, including protecting local fishery habitats, maintaining fishing populations in the delaware river. these projects serve both an environmental purpose to protect our local wildlife, but also our local industry and access to healthy waterways, support for millions of dollars in local economies. re-authorizing the delaware river basin conservation act allows the u.s. army corps, as well as other environmental nonprofits and local governments the funding for the necessary environmental protection and conservation efforts needed to keep our citizens safe and healthy. in my home city of philadelphia, the delaware watershed conservation fund was the providing fund to multiagencies to install green stormwater control, trail coordination and

building new parts to connect underserved neighborhoods to recreation opportunities on the delaware river. this amendment not only protects our environment, but it protects our environment and our livelihoods and health and safety. in line with the bipartisan infrastructure bill that congress passed last year, this amendment would also allow the secretary of interior to waive cost share requirements for the most disadvantaged communities. that's rural, urban. this will help low-income communities and it's important to understand what that means to our local environment. the delaware river basin was passed in 2016 with bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to join in supporting this passage of this amendment and re-authorize this necessary environmental program. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: jargd for five minutes. >> this amendment, reauthorizes the delaware river basin program for 10 years and increases the federal cost share for the projects. look, it's the same kind of theme here. and i guess it's late, quarter after two and we are talking about the national defense authorization act and this is about the i'm sure it is important we served together in the state house and the transportation and infrastructure shares jurisdiction over this legislation with our colleagues on the natural resources committee, not on the house

armed services committee. this doesn't belong here. this bill, this amendment hasn't been considered in the transportation and infrastructure committee and neither side has taken a look at it. we know this. this has nothing to do with the protecting the residents of the delaware bay or delaware bay from invasion from the chinese or or amphibious force and talked about the trails and the environment and all great discussion, we are here to talk about the national defense authorization act. this is not to be pass nondefense-related amendments and completely unrelated to national defense and undermines

our national security by providing resources that should go to the pentagon. maybe there is a national security nexus because the pennsylvania's natural gas has enriched the putin regime and continued gas. that's what it has done. this bill has no place in the national defense authorization act and most people might be sleeping at 2:15, i'm not and

this doesn't belong here and another discussion where we can get into the details of what this re-authorize agencies would do. we are not going to be duped by adding this to the national defense authorization act and continuing the overreach of the unelected and i urge to oppose this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. evans: this is passed in 2016. very same year i came in mr. speaker. it is about the people and at the end of the day, that's what

we are here for. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabbed. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: i it is always about good people but on this particular evening it is about national defense and national security. it's not about this. this does not belong here. we should have a conversation about this, not not tonight and not on this bill. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the amendment ordered by mr. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the pip of the chair, the gentleman from pennsylvania.

pursuant to section 3-s the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings. the amendment 465 quill not offered. it is order to considered 495. nor what purpose the gentleman from virginia. come connell i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 495, 117-405 offered by mr. comley of. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr.connolly: i recognize my self. to support an amendment, h # 49 # and removes requirements on embassies abroad and amendment that was offered by my republican friends it is a public-private that has american art and environs engages including artists, galleries and encompasses venues in count dries and through art and we have exchanges exhibiting

and for example. in 2019. the african-american experience was for an exhibit that featured works. the program has a long track record for advancing through art exhibits. the museum of modern art first envisioned this global arts program and president kennedy who understood the value of art formalized for our state department in 1963. unfortunately, the 2021 legislation had reporting requirement nts. and limits the purchase to

25,000 and anything above that has to come to rm congress to review and all art beyond that limit. that places a strain on our ability. these attacks on cultural exchange programs are not new. in the 1940's and members of congress attempted to defund the works of american artists. and not only showcases but basic right to beliefs and important tool for the united states to advance our public priorities and support and this will sunset

the requirement from the two-year sunset. an artist who has participated in the exchanges, art is more important than ever because it can transsend and helps us focus. i urge my quoll ocean to the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman reserves the balance of his time for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> claim time in opposition. >> i rise in opposition to this incredibly amendment a and this is the opposing party and embarrass and fact we are doing

so late and democrats that requires the state department before it spends for arts most of this art will nevada be seen. now these same democrats want to repeal because there is no way they can justify to and inflation is at 9. #% and our economy is on the brink. a few years ago, the state department spent $84,000 taxpayer designed by bob dylan and it woch a and during the shutdown and there i thought that was sickening and any tax

dollars being spent on our embassies. the state department notified us it wanted to spend of sculpture of clouds d.m. anand: $350,000 and lots more. they should be spending zero. and these employs 15 people and that's a lot more than the average salary. so the bill that my friend is presenting is sunsetting and you are denying congress that oversight and we should have the

purse springs and mr. speaker, that is so elitist and needs to chicago their privilege. and our government cannot justify spending that much on art and trying to spend thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time >> the intolerance referring to this amendment is just ridiculous, coupled with the admission from the gentleman from tennessee and wants it zero. art is a beautiful look at pick casto. and the anticipate war painting. i was in madrid when i spoke

about war and piece and i visited the prada and by goya and he witnessed that horror and drove him into madness. maybe you think art ought to be zero. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and not to go the route of zero art in america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the previous question is order. the question is on the amendment. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- >> i ask for the yeas and nays

pursuant to section 3-s, yeas and nays are ordered further provision are postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c further consideration of h.r. 7900 is postponed. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the department ofhomeland security came back with a report proving that border presenter

did not whip illegal immigrants and no evidence that they struck illegal illegal border after photographers took pictures after horse patrols and swirling the reins and they forced that agents seemed to be whipping the agents and they announced they are going to punish the agents. wow! great for morale and they are going to pay the price. the president and vice president and leader chum irhave and took the images

negative media attention brought about has vilified these agents needlessly, hurting morale, hurting recruitment and it's just flat false. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. grothman: in the zeal to spend more money on our military, some of which is admirable, it's easy to forget that we still have a crisis at the southern border. again and again, month after month, 160,000, 180,000 people are coming here. it should be brought to our attention because recently a who aresque sexual assault -- a horrific sexual assault of a 10-year-old made national news and i don't believe it was anywhere near publicized enough that the assault was done by an illegal immigrant. this is what's happen -- this is

what happens when we have an open border. people have to pay a horrible price for the laxness here. in addition, of course, to the sexual assault, we have 110,000 deaths by illegal drugs in this country, and the current administration doesn't seem to care at all. it is time in this plethora of spending bills to have dramatic increases in the number of people at the border as well as to go back to the stay in mexico policy. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. today.