overseas, i was also asked to serve on the house -- w has which has been a great opportunity. host: how long do plan on being on capitol hill? guest: as long as i can properly represent the good people of the fourth district, and for as long as they want me here. host: what we dot see would be something you need to do to have a successful freshman term? guest: keep working on the things that is important to the people of the fourth district. what matters is quality of life, with inflation, crime and now the migrant issue. those are the issues i am focused on and at the things that are talked about around the dinner table in communities where i live. near hempstead, those towns, those of the people that sent me here and i will keep fighting to make sure i am there voice,

regardless of the party they are from. host: anthony d'esposito, freshman lawmaker. come back again. that will do it for us this morning. a reminder that the house is coming in now. we will be back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now live coverage of the floor of the house of representatives. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. merciful god, how hard it is in these days of contest and contention not to keep score. both outside and inside these chambers, we are hardwired to tally wins and losses. but while this may be the nature of things, forgive us when we gloat over our enemy's loss when we find ourselves selfishly satisfied when our opponent stumbles. all around us there are countless situations where we find ourselves so inclined.

internationally, when a power suffers not just the loss of a certain battlefield advantage, but the devastating attrition of its young men and women sacrificed on the front line. in world, god, there is no rejoicing. we pray for peace on both sides of the conflict in ukraine and reconciliation for all who have suffered so terribly and unnecessarily. so too we pray for ourselves as the battle lines have been drawn between parties and the debate rages on all sides. remind us once more that to disparage our opponent is no less an act of human being ris than it is -- hubris than it is to celebrate whether our adversary stumbles. call us to our better serves with hearts and minds governed by the compassion you have shown us time and again. may your mercy be our battle standard and your love the weapon of our choosing. in the peace we find only in your name, we pray.

, amen. the speaker: amen. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. carey. mr. carey: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to honor and memorialize community leader and advocate, linda. linda graduated from imperial high school in 1964 and dedicated her life to improving the lives of others. she committed her time and energy to improving the health and well-being of those in her community, especially those in the imperial valley. mr. ruiz: despite her own diagnosis, linda showed her passion for fighting cancer through her advocacy and volunteer work with the american cancer society action net.

for -- network for over 20 years and through her incredible contributions to working on policies through the local, state and federal levels. linda is survived by her husband, steve, daughters stephanie and christina, and her grandchildren. a community and family mourns the loss of a loved one, an advocate and a friend. today we recognize her and thank her. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek

recognition? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. right now we're on the path to a government shutdown caused by extremist members who are unwilling to put politics aside to do what's right for the country. a government shutdown would be a disaster for north carolina. it would leave 6,574 federal workers in my district without a paycheck. it would jeopardize benefits for over 49,000 veterans in my district. mr. nickel: and it would hurt our economy. the last shutdown permanently cost our country $3 billion. that was only a partial shutdown. we can't afford to do that again. that's why i've introduced the no budget, no pay act. this bill has a simple idea. members of congress shouldn't get paid if we don't do our jobs. i'm proud to say this bill now

has bipartisan support in the house. i came to congress to get things done and i'll continue to work in a bipartisan way to avoid a government shutdown and do what's right for north carolina. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4365, and that i may include tabular material on the subject. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 723 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4365. the chair appoints the gentleman from ohio, mr. carey, to preside

over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4365, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the committee on appropriations or their ris -- respective designees. the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise today in support of h.r. 4365, the fiscal year 2024 defense appropriation bill. which is the result of months of hearings, briefings and engagements of all members and subcommittees. provide for our strong national defense, this bill recommends $826.45 billion for the department of defense and the intelligence community, which is $27.8 billion above fiscal year 2023's enacted level. when i became chairman of the subcommittee, i made it clear to the department they would not receive any blank checks, any requests that lacked adequate justification, or did not directly support d.o.d.'s mission, would not be funded in the bill. it is our constitutional obligation of congress and this committee in particular to

ensure that proper and appropriate use of taxpayer funds, at a time when the department of defense leadership is more focused on cultural issues and war fighting missions, this obligation is more critical than ever. i'm proud to say that due to the hard work of the members of the subcommittee, the bill funds our defense needs in a fiscally responsible manner. specifically, this bill cuts nearly $20 billion from the president's misguided request and re-invests these funds into war fighting capabilities and additional support for our service members. i also approached crafting this bill with a comprehensive strategy focused on specific lines of effort. investing in america's military superiority, to deter the people's republic of china, combating illicit fentanyl and synthetic opioids which are killing over 100,000 americans every year, shaping a more efficient and effective work force, creating a culture of innovation, enhancing oversight of all programs to ensure the

appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. and taking care of service members and their families. to counter china, this bill doubles funding for the internal international security cooperation programs for taiwan, provides an additional $200 million to accelerate the delivery of the e-7, prohibits the decommissioning of ships to grow the fleet, aids aircraft like the f-35 and the ch-53-k. continues investments in next generation platforms, supports recapitalization of the nuclear triad. to enhance d.o.d.'s efforts to counter the flow of deadly drugs into the country, the bill includes a historic investment of $1.1 billion in drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, including increased funding for the counternarcotics support, demand reduction, the national counterdrug program and the national counterdrug schools. the bill also moves mexico into

an area of responsibility which will forest ar more hole -- foster a more holistic approach to latin american security issues. tthis bill cuts over $1 billion from the budget request for the department civilian work foargs. this accomplishes this -- work force. this accomplishes this goal through attrition while engaging employees in sexual assault and response duties. i want to be clear, no one will be fired as a result of this language. during our analysis of the budget request, the services and agencies across d.o.d. reported attrition rates as high as 14%. this bill directs d.o.d. to adopt smart business practices to become more effective and efficient, which is desperately needed. the bill also mandates a reassessment of d.o.d.'s man power requirements. a plan to adopt technology to improve its business processes, and provides $751 million for the chief data and artificial intelligence office to further accelerate business

modernization. this multipronged approach is critical to create a fiscally sustainable and efficient work force and is informed by previous defense reform efforts. next, we are aware the department must innovate faster to keep pace with global threats. to do this, the bill includes over $1 billion to the defense innovation unit, to get needed capability into the hands of the war fighter. the bill focuses on near-term delivery of capability, partnering with the private sector. we cannot continue to take decades to produce new systems or even worse, invest billions into programs that must be eventually canceled due to nonperformance. the bridge, the valley of death, the bill includes $300 million to expand the successful procurement pilot program. further, it creates a newport foal yo to rapidly field -- portfolio to -- new portfolio to rapidly field technologies through nontraditional entities within the department. to get the department focused on

its war fighting mission and away from culture wars, the bill includes a number of new general provisions that send a clear message to the department. these include funding prohibitions on teaching critical race theory, facilitating access to abortions that attempt to ignore the longstanding hyde amendment, overreach by the biden administration on climate change, and promoting so-called diversity, equity and inclusion programs. the fact that the committee has to address these issues reflects the failure of the department's leadership. finally, investments in weapons systems do not matter, we fail to invest in our most important resource, our service members. with changes in this bill, junior enlisted service members will receive an average pay increase of 30% this. will have a significant impact or -- 30%. this will have a significant impact on recruitment and retention. i was shocked to see the biden administration opposed the pay increase. as an appropriator, it is our

responsibility to ensure our military has the resources necessary to defer conflict, if we do get into a fight, and we win and they lose. this bill makes it clear that any adversary that challenges the united states military is not in their best interest. before i close, i'd like to comment on the number of amendments we've received from this bill. i'm supportive of this open, transparent and inclusive process. i will have to be mindful not to rob our readiness accounts to fund other priorities. i look forward to working with all members on this as we move forward in the process. finally, i would like to thank all the staff for the incredible work they do to vet this budget request, work with the members, put forward recommendations, assemble the final product. as my ranking member and former chair, ms. mccollum, knows, putting together this bill is not an easy task. i want to thank her and her staff for their cooperation. this is not -- this is a strong

bill for our service members and their families. i look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle, the senate and the administration, to enact a bill as soon as possible. not doing so is a disservice to the men and women of the united states armed forces. i strongly urge support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank you, mr. chair, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: i rise today in opposition to h.r. 4365, the fiscal year 2024 defense appropriations act. as chair of the subcommittee last as chair last congress i understand think the difficult process required to put this together. that's why i want to thank minority staff here today, jennifer, jason, if a rules committee -- farooq, mike in my

personal office. and the fabulous minority staff that gets to work with a great majority staff who worked so hard for all of us. i wish the bill before us was more focused as our job as appropriators. i'm training and equipping our troops and ensuring our service members and their families have their needs met at home. that's why it's disappointing to see the majority use the appropriations process and the defense bill to push an extreme socialist policy agenda. the riders included in this bill they divide, they do not unite. here are just a few examples. the bill prohibits the department of defense's policy to ensure that service members and their families have access to leave and travel allowances for basic reproductive health care. the department's policy is legal under federal law. the department of justice has concluded that fact, and i quote from them, the d.o.d. may

lawfully extend funds to pay for service members and their dependents to to obtain abortions that the d.o.d. cannot perform due to staff requirements. why is that important that the d.o.d. cannot perform due to statutory requirements? first i want to be clear. i do not support the hyde amendment, but let me address it and what this prohibition does even to services legal under the hyde amendment. it prohibits the d.o.d. from using funds or facilities to perform an abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. that's not in keeping in spirit with the hyde amendment. so what does that mean to the nearly 20% of our forces that are women? they do not get to choose where they serve. 80,000 of those women are stationed in states that restrict reproductive health care.

if you serve in those states, and you are pregnant because of rape, or you are on a base that does not offer obstetrics and gynecology service, then you must travel, you must travel out of state for health care that you are entitled to. this bill interprets the hyde amendment in a way that it was never intended. many service women and dependents will lose access to the exceptions of the hyde amendment if they are not allowed to travel to seek the health care they need. this language, in fact, is a de facto national abortion ban. and i believe using our service members to do that is shameful. young women will refuse to serve, women will exit the force because of this. husbands and fathers will not want to serve in states where their families will be negatively impacted. that's why i offered an amendment in rules to strike this provision, but the majority chose not to make it in order. i wish they had.

i wish we would have all had the courage to bring this to the floor and allow a debate that our service members deserve. the majority has also cut programs for diversity, equity, and inclusion which will discourage recruitment from all across america. the private sector are embracing programs like this to keep a happy, healthy forceful workforce. there is language in here that bans critical race theory, but it goes far beyond that, mr. chair. in fact, the bill seeks to define what can and cannot be taught in our military academies on whether or not certain topics cause discomfort? this language reads like a ban on teaching american history. sometimes facts are uncomfortable. as a former social studies teacher, i want you to know, mrs outrageous. how can our military academies tell the history of the civil war without teaching about slavery? that's uncomfortable.

how can they discuss the story and history of desegregation in the military without talking about the jim crow laws that our black service members had to struggle with what they returned home from war. that's uncomfortable. we should be celebrating the d.o.d. is about to be led by two distinguished black americans for the first time in history. second of defense, lloyd austin, and chairman of the joint chiefs, general c.q. brown who is incoming to this position. their service shows us how building a diverse workforce can take us into a proud future. there are provisions in this bill that are offensive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender americans. that will impact who serves. the ban on gender affirming care will drive transgender service members out of the military. and why, mr. chair, do we have an i.r.s. provision on the tax treatment of individuals who

hold the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman? in this bill. it's not germane. words matter. divisive riders will hurt the military's undermined readiness and make our national security weaker. they must come out of this legislation if we are to gain bipartisan support for this to become law. turning to the numbers. the majority has funded this bill at $826.4 billion. very close to the president's budget. but i'm concerned about cuts in two areas. first, the majority has made a $714 million cut to military climate programs and ban the assessment of military impacts on the department. we know that climate change is a national security threat. and it drives conflict. you can ask our indo-pacific commander. he will tell you that climate change impacts how the united states force operates. our military installations also face threat from climate change

here at home. look at a $10 billion in damage from severe weather events on installations. awe fit -- offit air force base, and camp lejeune. this spring alone a typhoon made $4 billion. when we cut climate programs, we pay for it on the back end. i posted $1.1 billion cuts to civilian personnel in this bill. 10 years ago congress correct directed d.o.d. to cut personnel by $10 billion over five years. we achieved no substantial savings. we shifted the workforce from civilian employees to expensive contractors. mr. chair, i have a long history of bipartisan cooperation. i'm proud of that. and i am confident that chair calvert and i can find a way to get to agreement on a conference committee so that we can move the defense spending levels

forward. but i have to say again how disappointed i am that the majority has included these extreme social policy riders. they would undermine the force of today. discourage the building of the force tomorrow and weaker as a nation. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill at this time. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: a comment. let's be clear about why critical race theory is. it's a decisive -- divisive left-wing intellectual construct that advances the notion that racism is systematic in our country's institution. it advocates for race-based solutions and rejects equal opportunity in favor of equal outcomes. my friends on the other side like to deride the prohibition in our bill for funding activities that promote in part condoning individual feelings, discomfort, quilt, or anguish.

they claim that the bill will prohibit teaching uncomfortable historical truths. but they always omit the last part that have statement which is, on account of that individual's race or sex. do my friends on the other side want to fund activities because of their race or sex? i don't think so. i reject it. and this bill does. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, the ranking member of the military construction and veterans subcommittee, ms. wasserman schultz, who is so important to the defense of our nation. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this bill. because it is incomprehensible to me that the majority would actually spend as much time, really any time, on culture war

riders and focusing on their extremist priorities as opposed to protecting the national security interests of our nation. here we are once again considering a bill that has no chance of becoming law. as we hurtle recklessly towards a government shutdown. that will be damaging most importantly to the morale of our troops, and to the defense of our nation. worse, this historicically bipartisan national security bill has been high jacked by radical right-wing extremists. instead of confronting grave national security threats like climate change, it is riddled with bigoted attacks on americans who bravely serve our nation. it needlessly politicizes the mill' and undermines those who risk their lives. my colleagues across the aisle were tasked with craft ago defense bill that supports all our service members.

not just those who are white, straight, and conservative. and they coiled miserably on that mission -- failed miserably on that mission. i won't stand while they try to undermine the service of lgbtq+ service members. to top it off, listen to this, the report that goes along with this bill puts the word extremism in quotes. republicans can't even admit that this is a real concept or threat. i plead with my republican colleagues to put forward a defense bill that focuses on the real needs of the members of our military. focuses on the actual national security interests of our country. and tops feeding the extremism that is emanating from their own party. i beg them to stop using this critical bill, one that we literally count on to keep every american family safe, as a disruptive wedge for partisan discriminatory policies. keep america strong. don't divide it. thank you. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield to the gentlewoman from oklahoma, member of the appropriations committee, mrs. bice, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mitts bice: thank you, mr. speaker -- business mice: thank you, mr. speaker -- mrs. bice: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank you for your hard work in crafting this bill. today our nation faces serious threats from our adversaries. and in particular the people's republic of china. this legislation focuses on delivering the result resources needed to counter these threats and to support our service members and their families. the bill includes one of the largest pay increases for our troops in years. particularly for our junior enlisted, as well as needed investments in next generation fighter aircraft, submarines, and modernized tactical vehicles. i'm also pleased the bill focuses on combating the illicit flow of opioids and fentanyl

into the country which are killing countless americans on a daily basis. the legislation takes needed steps to ensure that the d.o.d. is focused on its core mission of being the most lethal and effective fighting force on the planet. not on advance ago woke agenda -- advancing a woke agenda. i'm pleased it plus defense priorities in the state of oklahoma including funding to accelerate e-7. i thank the chair and my colleagues. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the the gentlewoman from -- the gentlewoman minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i am going to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs, who is on the foreign affairs committee. as many military leaders have told us, diplomacy, defense, and development go together. the more we don't spend in those venues, the more bullets we have

to buy. i'm pleased to have her here as well as being very important member of the armed services committee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you. ms. jacobs: thank you. mr. chair i rise today in a unique position to oppose this bill. especially section 8146. i'm proud to represent san diego, the largest military community in the country. i'm also proud to serve as one of the youngest members of this body he, and youngest woman on the house armed services committee. i am in a unique position to understand importance of access to reproductive health care, including abortion -- including abortion and other care. i think reproductive care is my health care. that's the case for the 1.62 million women of reproductive age in the military health system, too. not to mention our lgbtq+ service members who already have difficulty accessing necessary care. this care is essential to our health, well-being, freedom, economic security, and emp

empowerment. and for our national security, too. that's why i'm thankful for d.o.d.'s policy that covers the travel and transportation costs for abortion and fertility care. a policy that is consistent with the law. this is so important now that nearly half of all servicewomen are stationed in states with abortion restrictions. because our service members have little say in where they are stationed. they can't freely take days off work, and many can't afford to travel thousands of miles and pay out of pocket to receive the care they need and deserve. d.o.d.'s policy took important steps to address those barriers and make our military more accessible and inclusive. that's why i will proudly fight for our service members who fought so much for all of us here today. the least we can do ensure they have their necessary health c care. . i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. if the house rules permitted, i would have offered a motion with an important amendment to this bill. it would strike section 8146. at the end of the debate, i will insert into the record the text

of this amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. before i yield, i also want to mention that while i'm opposed to this bill in general, i am very proud of a bipartisan amendment that we were able to get into en bloc package 1 that would set aside $5 million in additional funding to recruit and retain direct care staff in c.d.c. i've heard time and again that staffing shortages are the main driver of our military child care crisis. and in my community, that has sacrificed and served so much for us, recently more than 4,000 military children were waiting for child care spots at san diego's military child care centers. so this amendment will help support military families to access the care they need so they can focus on their mission instead of wondering if their kids are safe and taken care of. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman from california, a champion for our members in the military, for two

minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank the chairman, mr. ken calvert, for this historic bill. i rise today in support of this very conservative d.o.d. appropriations package. i want to remind the american people that the purpose of the military is two-fold. the first is to deter a war if diplomacy fails. to augment diplomacy in that deterrence. and the second is if, by the exhaustion of all means, we have to go to war, to actually give the american people the tools to win the war and keep our securities. that's it. to deter a war and win a war. this bill does exactly that. it trims the fat and removes the excess programs, the woke c.r.t. programs within the current policies under this administration. but it also critically funds our nation's most essential programs like the f-35, the columbia class submarine, the b-21 rader which i'm proud is made in my beautiful district, california's 27th congressional district.

it moves mexico from a command that is kind of an orphan right now by itself, and during this open border policy, we are now removing mexico and putting it back into southcom so that the combatant commanders can treat mexico as the threat that it is to our southern border and the influx of immigrants. that's very important. but with all those things, as important as they are, the weapons systems, the change of mexico to southcom, the single biggest thing that we are taking care of, the single biggest asset within our military that we are taking care of is our troops. and i stood at this podium about six months ago when i said i would not support a defense department spending bill or an ndaa that did not adequately address the pay issues, especially that our junior enlisted have right now. about 1/3 of our junior enlisted live below the poverty line. about 1/3 qualify for food stamps right now. and i'm very proud that our appropriations committee on

defense was able to reconcile and address this adequately. the starting pay of a junior enlisted e-1 was $22,000 a year and we moved that to $31,000 -- mr. calvert: 30 seconds. mr. garcia: the starting salary is $22,000. that is the equivalent of $11 an hour. this bill takes that to $31,200, gets some parity with their civilian counterparts, and addresses the record high civilian pay gap that our junior enlisted -- of our junior enlisted. i urge support of the appropriations package and a yes vote on the bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. you know, everyone is welcome to serve in an all-voluntary army. we need everyone to feel that they are welcome to serve in our all-volunteer army. and that sometimes means doing a little extra outreach. i had to do that with my military academies, to let all the students know that this was a great opportunity for them to

get a great education and serve our country. it was outreach. it was inclusion. it reached out to diversity and it's made our military academies stronger for that. so the bottom line for me is, if you're willing to take the oath of office, if you're willing to put your life on the line for our country and you can get through boot camp and you want to serve our country, you're welcome to serve. mr. chair, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from hawaii, a fabulous member of the defense subcommittee, mrn helping us understand our challenges in the indo-pacific. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. thank you to my friend from minnesota. i rise there opposition to this measure and i must say -- i rise in opposition to this measure and i must say to my friend and colleague and chair of the subcommittee and to my majority colleagues that it's deeply frustrating and deeply regretful to have to stand in opposition to a bill that in so many ways is a very, very good bill.

my colleague, mr. garcia, reflected in his comments just now, many provisions of the bill with which i can agree. this bill does great things for the indo-pacific. eyes wide open on the threat of china. it funds the pacific deterrence initiative. it provides for strengthening of allies and partners' relationships, it helps our service members. there's so much good in this bill. and so what is so frustrating is to see it infected with the same kind of partisan provisions and divisive issues that for a long time have not been a part of the appropriations subcommittee on defense. this has been a refuge of sorts from the culture wars, from the division that we've seen elsewhere, and now no longer is. and this is the consequence. the consequence is division in the department of defense and in our relations and review of the department of defense, which should not be infected by these areas, for a department that is, again, very realistic about the threats we face. my colleagues have talked about

a lot of these issues already. that create a fatal flaw in this bill. but i'm going to focus on one and that is climate change. oh, no, let's not say those words. climate change. somehow we are all supposed to react to this as if it's some kind of thing that we can put up on the shelf. well, the department of defense does not ignore climate change. the department of defense has its own eyes wide open for decades now on the risks of climate change. we can go back, for example, to january, 2019, which is one of its most recent reports. and this is a report from the d.o.d., a report on the effects of a changing climate. is that a better way to say it? to the department of defense. and i quote from the executive summary. the effects of a changing climate are a national security issue, with potential impacts to the department of defense's missions, operation plans. our national defense strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors. to achieve these goals, d.o.d. must be able to adapt current

and future operations to address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and natural events. to that end, d.o.d. factors in the effects of the environment into its mission planning and execution to build resilience. pretty realistic on the part of the d.o.d. followed up by very definite reports here, the department of defense climate adaptation plan from september, 2001, climate a-- september 2021, climate adaptation plan, climate risk analysis, october, 2021. d.o.d. is not ignoring this issue. however, -- however you want to label it, for this can it -- nor can it. should we ignore the rise in sea level at pearl harbor where we're investing billions and billions of dollars? shall we -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. case: ignore the consequences of guam, of hurricanes? of course we need to do this. let's get away from this approach of defunding climate risk analysis in the d.o.d. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is

recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the chair. to my friend, we fund resilience in this bill. what we don't fund is electrifying bradleys and tanks, which makes no sense. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i'm prepared to close as we have no further speakers. i want to say again how sad i am to be disappointed to see these divisive riders in the bill. and they're all to gratify the extreme right of a few people in the republic party -- republican party. i also don't make a habit of complimenting the senate, but we should take note that their appropriators are operating in a bipartisan fashion. their defense bill was passed

out of committee 27-1 because it had no divisive language. and it made cooperation possible. go back and watch our markup of this defense bill. and you just have to ask yourself, are we doing our job as appropriators? we're not discussing our increasingly broken military health care system, which i've heard from military family and service members -- families and service members both here at home and when iefl -- when i've traveled abroad, the lack of support for mental health, the lack of access even here in the united states to immediate health care concerns for themselves and their family members. and as i pointed out, we are solely now facing lack of obstetrics and gynecology on our military bases right here in the united states. making the travel that the department of defense put in for

women service members and women family members to get their full health care needs. we could be talking about the merits of supporting ukraine and how the democracies are coming together to show communism and terrorism that we stand united in our goals and principles. or we could be talking about how to jump-start ship building to compete with what china is already doing in the indo-pacific. but we spent our markup arguing about extreme social policies that have no place in this bill. and now we're running out of time, with the shutdown fast approaching. our service members and their families have made a tremendous -- a considerable sacrifice to serve our nation. so the least we can do is give them a government that stays open and pays them on time. i know chairwoman granger and chairman calvert and i believe that we can get this job done.

but the majority must show that it can govern in a bipartisan fashion. and work with us to get these bills done. and that's what we've done plenty of times and what i'm hopeful we will do in the future. but for right now, i have to ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. let's get the appropriations process back on a bipartisan track. and with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady for her comments and i know that eventually we'll work out our differences. but, yes, i admit this bill prohibits funding for drag queen story hour for kids and drag queens in recruitment. i had to choose between building ships or that, those kinds of decisions. i chose the ships. but with that, this debate going

forward, i want to talk about the readiness of our military operations, building the necessary equipment to make sure that our men and women win any war that we may have to involve ourselves in. hopefully none. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 118-216, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the house resolution 723, and pro forma amendments described in section 13 of the resolution. each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time

specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the action thereon. shall not be subject to an amendment except as provided by section 13 of house resolution 723, and shall not be subject to a deplanned for division -- demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time, chair of the committee on appropriations or her designee, to offer amendments en bloc, consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 13 of house resolution 723, and shall not be subject to a deplanned for division of the question -- demand for division of the question. during consideration of the bill for the amendment, the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees

may offer up 10 pro forma amendments, each at any point for the purpose of debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chair, pursuant to house resolution 723, i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number one consisting of amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 49, 51 and 65 printed in

part a of house report 118-216 offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house the chair: the gentleman from california, and the gentlewoman from minnesota, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial amendments. supported by both sides. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: t the gentlewoman frm minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i support this amendment. it contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of member priorities on both sides. we have no objections and we encourage the adoption of this amendment. and i wish this the spirit in which this bill had originally been written. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized.

ms. mccollum: i'm ready to yield back. mr. calvert: i reserve for the moment. seeing no speakers, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i'm happy to yield back as well. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: pursuant to house resolution 723, i offer amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designated the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2 convoying of amendments number 43, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 75,

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, number 50.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from california, an the gentlewoman from minnesota, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial amendments. supported by both sides. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, our country has no greater responsibility than to protect and defend this nation and its constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. and i want to thank ranking

member mccollum for yielding me time to speak. as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. i am deeply disappointed i have to say overall the bill the majority has forced to the floor today, america and our allies are grappling with an increasingly dynamic and dangerous world. global challenges include real enemies. as well as the unpredictability of nature and climate change. and we have now see artificial intelligence threatening to further destabilize the world we rely on for liberty and prosperity. russia's waging war of aggression against a neighboring comic state. china is outpacing our military development and positioned it self as a significant geopolitical competitor on many levels. it's our responsibility and that of the annual defense appropriations legislation to ensure we are prepared to surmount these threats. however, the majority's legislation is distracted and consumed by division.

instead of policies that would enkur the -- ensure the safety of our nation's most important defense asset, our brave men and women in uniform. in another i could be proud of important provisions, including support for research, testing, and manufacturing of space technologies that would define how our future wars might be fought. many of which are being developed in my home state of ohio. instead, this legislation focuses on divisive policies never seen in a defense appropriations bill. like banning diversity and inclusion programs. in this diverse nation. targeting women and lgbtq and service members. and preventing the department of defense from addressing the very real dangers of disinformation campaigns and extremist rhetoric in our military. enacting these proposals would have disastrous consequences for the morale and readiness of our armed forces. we are seeing the unprecedented recruitment shortfalls they already face. while the legislation maintains funding for many key security

commitments to our concurrent resolution allies, by funding key regional security initiatives, it fails to innovate or provide expansion of funding necessary to meet the moment which is newly defined by the largest war for liberty since world war ii being fought as we speak in the nation of ukraine. i could say so much on this. ukrainian people and their east european -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: an additional 10 seconds. thank you very much. i appreciate the ranking member. and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield the gentleman from guam, mr. moylan, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moylan: mr. speaker, i rise to speak up for the people of guam. who are facing immediate danger from the chinese and north korean missiles. china's df-26 missile has been

dub the h.r.ed the guam -- has been dubbed the guam killer. north korea repeatedly threatens my island. and our american defense system cannot simultaneously track or shoot down missiles from two directions at once. let's also be mineful of the fact that service members from across the nation serve on guam and face similar peril. i urge my colleagues support my amendment with the safety of your constituents in mind. please vote to protect the people of guam and vote in favor of my amendment. to truly fund guam missile defense. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from florida, member of the

appropriations committee. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankel: thank you. i rise today in support of representative joe wilson and my bipartisan amendment, supporting efforts to modernize personal equipment for female service members and small statue service members -- stature service members. 27% of our service members are women serving our nation. so it is alarming, mr. speaker, that according to a new army report nearly half of female service members in the army special operations command have trouble accessing or acquiring equipment that is the right size for them. imagine, one of these warriors are in the battlefield, they are facing an enemy combatant, and ill fitting body armor prevent them from proper use of their rifle.

that puts them at severe risk for harm and prevent them from executing their duty. listen, there is no excuse, there is no excuse for not giving these patriots the equipment and tools to allow them to do their job safely and effectively. our military women, they leave their families, they train hard. and are willing to risk their lives to defend our freedom. we need to do a better job to stand up for those. i urge my colleagues to join me and my friend, joe wilson, in a bipartisan amendment to make sure that all our service members have the equipment that they need to keep them safe and do their job effectively. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. mr. mccollum: mr. chair, i have no other speakers on this en bloc. i'm prepared to yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota yields back? mr. mccollum: i'm going to be honest. i was distracted by a member asking a question. could you repeat yourself. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. mccollum: i absolutely yield back. thank you for your courtesy. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chair, pursuant to house resolution 723, i offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: clerk the amendment.

the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of amendments numbered 86, 89, 98, 100, 102, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 2 -- 122, 123, 124, 126, 117, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 116, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 159, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chair, these are noncontroversial amendments supported by both sides. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. mr. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to yield two

minutes to the gentlewoman from texas in support of this en bloc, which i also support. the gentlewoman from houston. the chair: the gentlewoman texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i'll take those 10 minutes. but i thank the gentlelady for her courtesies and particularly concerned as we move forward. this bill directly impacts the men and women who have unselfishly put on the uniform. i'm grateful to the chair and ranking member for working together, but let me be very clear, we have an overall defense bill that is enormously challenging for the american people. . the united states military, women in particular, one in five members of the military are women, will are necessary --

will be blocked from reproductive services that are necessary. those in particular who live in the state of texas will be blocked from achieving the reproductive health that they need. the lgbtq+ community is also negatively impacted by health care. mr. speaker, this has nothing to do with military preparedness and should not be involved. in addition, the general has offered -- the gentleman has offered the commitment to electric vehicles, but yet this bill cuts $714 million. so i rise today to say i do not want a government shutdown. but i'd like us to do the right thing. democrats don't want a government shutdown. we are obviously fighting against those who are getting directions from the former president that says, shut it down. but i'm very grateful that my amendment, dealing with triple negative breast cancer, is in this legislation. this is very important to me. it seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research. this issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military, up to 20% to 40

mothers more likely -- more -- 40% more likely to develop breast cancer. i thank the biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority. this amendment would allow for more research so that we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce this most devastating aspect of breast cancer. this has a more deadlier impact, that is why it's called triple negative breast cancer, that targets women. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the jackson lee amendment, and a complete defense bill that responds to the needs of the united states military. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: mr. chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, retired navy seal, mr. van orden. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van orden: thank you. i rise today with deep reservations about the provisions in this bill funding the ukraine security assistance initiative. a program that's been in place since 2016.

today the united states has given $113 billion in security and humanitarian aid to the ukraine for their war against russia. i acknowledge the fact that this is an illegal war and vladimir putin should be punished. however, i am not happy with the level of visibility that we have given to this funding. the united states government must be in charge of our foreign policy, the united states government must be in charge of our defense policies and we should not be handing these over to the ukrainian government. we are funding ukrainians, we are paying their salaries for their troops and giving them stipends when we are potentially looking forward to shutting down our government due to democratic intransigence which means we will not be funding our own troops and this is simply unacceptable. before any new money is dispensed to ukraine, we need a

strategic exit plan from the biden administration with quantifiable metrics. still, i will not allow d.c.'s dysfunction to undermine our national security and hurt our military families and will support the underlying bill, again, with great reservations. we must fund our military and we must pay our troops. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i just want to be clear. in this bill we pay for our troops, our military to equip and to do training, but in this bill there's no funding for salaries for ukrainian troops. with that, i'm prepared to yield back my time and i thank the chair for working in such a bipartisan fashion for these en bloc amendments. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back her type? ms. mccollum: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. and the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by

the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 29 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. houlahan: i rise in support of my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. houlahan: thank you -- the chair: i'm sorry. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by ms. houlahan of pennsylvania. the chair: now the gentlelady is -- pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentlelady from pennsylvania and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania.

ms. houlahan: thank you, mr. speaker. defense centric small businesses in the industrial base face unique challenges in creating new, advanced production lines, scaling, expanding manufacturing capacity, and in competing and leading to issues with how to best support our war fighters with key advanced defense capabilities. for many of these u.s. businesses, translating investments into marketable products and services remains a challenge. as job creation engines, startups are vital to the american economy, but they often lack the resources to bring good ideas to market or to establish a contract with the defense department -- the department of defense. so that's why i introduced my. bob: bill, -- my boil bip -- my. bob: bill my bipartisan bill to help small businesses bridge the gap between creative innovative ideas to help our service members and the time it takes to get to full production capacity. this bill builds on the programs to further increase private sector commercialization of

innovations derived from federally funded r&d. i was very proud to see this bill included in this year's ndaa in section 853 of the house-passed bill, and in section 831 of the senate-passed bill and now we just need to fund it. due to its targeted support to small businesses, it's no surprise that the u.s. chamber of commerce has made this effort a top legislative priority and i'm very proud to have their support over the years to make this much-needed change. so what does this amendment do? this amendment would direct $50 million in defense to the defense production acts purchases account to fund the pilot program. funding in fiscal year 2024 would accelerate the scaling, production and manufacturing and acquisition of defense-centric domestic advance capabilities to bolster d.i.b. resilience and modernize and increase our competition advantage versus china and other adversaries. the public-private partnership pilot funding would increase support and investment for domestic, small, advanced

defense-focused businesses and stimulate key defense-centric industrial base markets, create new production lines, decrease defense-centric manufacturing supply chain vulnerabilities, provide advisory and scaling support and unlock private equity capital for advanced war fighting capability aligned with the national defense strategy. due to this targeted support to small businesses, it's really no surprise that the chamber has made this an effort -- made this effort a top elective priority and i'm -- legislative priority and i'm proud to have their sport. i know how urgent this legislation is and we have to support our talented entrepreneurs in translating their innovative ideas into marketable products and in cutting-edge technologies to make sure that many endeavors don't fail because they lack access to capital. thank you, i very much appreciate your support for this amendment, and i yield back. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? ms. houlahan: i reserve.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the bill, i cannot support directing $50 million to a pilot program. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. houlahan: i yield the ranking member 30 second in support of -- seconds in support of my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i want to thank the gentlewoman from pennsylvania for bringing this forward. i wholeheartedly support her amendment and hope that it will move forward with adoption in the bill. with that, i thank her for her time and i yield back any remaining time to her. ms. houlahan: i yield the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. houlahan: mr. chair, i'd like to ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentlewoman request a recorded vote? ms. houlahan: i request a recorded vote, yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. luttrell: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by

mr. luttrell of texas. the chair: pursuant to house res. rule -- house rule 723, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. luttrell: mr. chair, i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 4365, which would provide $15 million in funding for plant-based or psychedelic caribbean cal trials -- clinical trials authorized in the ndaa. mr. chair, i can personally attest to the benefits in treating posttraumatic stress, traumatic brain injury through the use of psychedelic substances. there's a stigma that exists within the body that i believe stems from a lack of education and experience around the clinical use of plant-based or psychedelic medications. i understand that when many of my colleagues hear the word psychedelic, they think of mushrooms and so on. this isn't what we are talking about today. and unfortunately the stigma has led to the slow or no adoption of medical procedures that may

have saved countless lives in our service members, veterans and first responders. mr. chair, it is our duty to explore all options when the lives of our nation's most precious resources, our sons and daughters, our mothers, our fathers, brothers and sisters, are at stake. i urge the adoption of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum: i'm going to rise in opposition to the gentleman from texas' amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman from texas for sharing his journey. and i'm glad you're doing well. i don't oppose the study of many of these drugs. but i'm going to lay out why in this particular instance i'm going to oppose this. on this floor we've had many a debate about whether or not medical marijuana should be used for posttraumatic stress for veterans and do research and all kinds of things, things i've

supported. and time and time again we haven't done that, in part because it's a schedule class 1 drug. the department's concerned about a study involving active service members. they acknowledge, and i'm glad that they do, that the benefits are being pursued by veterans and the implementation for active duty service members would be much more challenging at this time. because it involves the question around clearances, legal hurdles and the logistics which appear to hamper the success of a pilot program or study with active duty. as i said, schedule 1. i gave the example of marijuana. under the controlled substance act, it means that they have a high potential for abuse and there's no currently accepted medical treatment in the united states for this right now. so there's a lack of accepted safety for -- there's no medical supervision in the way we can move forward.

for this reason the defense health agency does not believe it could even be implemented. i support working with the department of veterans affairs to look at anything we can do to help welcome our service men and women home to find the help that they need. but currently with the way that this amendment is written, i reluctantly cannot support the gentleman's amendment. i look forward to working with the gentleman in the future for a future time for this. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. luttrell: mr. chair, thank you. thank you, ma'am, i appreciate that. as a veteran and -- i hold degrees in psychology and applieding couldnition and neuroscience. i've spent the better part of a decade studying our service members, our active members and veterans and first responders in the space of cognitive disability and decline. and we lose 22-plus a day in the

veteran space. we lose members in the active service space as well daily. the active aggressive nature of treatments in spaces like our cognitive decline, like selective inhibiters and other modalities, which i've traveled the country studying, the numbers that we're seeing are not decreasing, they're increasing. as we transition out of these wars that we've fought for so many years, we have to do something more aggressive. and i say clinical studies and clinical trials inside the d.o.d. because it is applicable and it is appropriate and we have some of the most brilliant researchers on the planet that can study this and move this effectively. so we can treat the men and women that serve our country. these medications have

short-term, no long-term residual side effects. short-term, if anything. but the effects are groundbreaking. we are at a precipice. i hate the fact that the word psychedelic scares everybody. i hate that myself. when i try to think of a creative term to title this, it always circles back to that -- word psych dellics -- psychedelics. that's unfortunate. it is. we have to look past that. i have never done a drug my entire life. i would tell no one to do this because the aggressiveness of it is so life changing. but it's effective. that's why i continue to push forward. i think it's time and it's effectiveness needs to be implemented now. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. luttrell: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the gentleman

from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment 57 will not be offered. the chair understands amendments numbers 66 through 74 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 125 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 125, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 723, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, and a member of the opposed. each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. chairman, my amendment would allocate $10 million for research, development tests, and evaluation for the space force. with the intent that the funds would be used for space force rocket systems launch program. this funding would continue the ongoing single stage to orbit propulsion research we have funded over the past three years and ensure the commercial says access rider supply chain is as large as possible. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in

opposition, reluctant opposition to this amendment. the amendment proposes to develop a single stage to orbit rocket. the idea of a single stage to orbit rocket is appealing, but the laws of physics are stubborn. in the early 2000s, actually the chair of the space aeronautics committee at the time, nasa spent more than $1 billion on such a concept and concluded that it wasn't practical or feasible. i'm not aware of any facts that changed that conclusion. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from the north carolina is recognized. ms. norton: i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has the only time remaining.

ms. norton: i have no more words. the chair: does the gentlelady -- ms. norton: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. p ms. norton: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 137 printed in house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 137, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by mr. crenshaw of texas. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. crenshaw, and a member of the opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. miss crenshaw: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to offer amendment 137 which states the simple yet important step of directing the defense health agency to report to congress on options for allowing active duty service members to participate in veterans' affairs psychedelic assisted therapy clinical trials. thee trials are already happening. in partnership with the v.a. there is no reason we should not be looking into the benefits of this research for our men and women that are already currently serving our country actively. i want to be clear about why i'm supporting this what is a very small step to research psychedelic assisted therapy for active duty service members. this is not about legalization or recreational use. it's about honoring our promise to military and confronting the high incidents dense of suicide in the veteran community.

there is a reason for this, it's the trauma of serving. more than 20 veterans kill themselves every day. 27% of post-9/11 veterans are diagnosed with ptsd. we have a crisis, the idea we wouldn't research potential breakthrough treatments is unacceptable. the status quo is inadequate and won't stop service members and veterans from committing suicide. i believe this research will. i have good reason for believing that. look at the data. the most recently phase three clinical trials found that 86% of the study participants have reduced ptsd symptoms, and 71% didn't even qualify as having ptsd anymore. people think they hear the word psychedelics, they think woodstock. this is not a 1960's l.s.d. trip. some groups are lobbying congress. no, this is not the work of the devil. this is not the work of the devil when this treatment is actually saving families and keeping families together.

this therapy is super advised by medical practitioner that occurs with repeat treatments in very controlled setting. oftentimes it's a one or two-time treatment. follow-up results reveal the positive effects continue for years. even after one treatment. these clinical trials are already changing the lives of people i know. i have so many close friends of mine who can say they are alive today because of this treatment. their marriages have survived because of this treatment. the idea we wouldn't even research it, that we would keep this out of the hands of people who need it is appalling, frankly. it's appalling. we should be listening to these stories. they have come up on capitol hill multiple times. for the members who say we need to learn more. we don't know enough. why would you get in the way of more research? you haven't come and listened to these veterans and service members when they have come up and told their stories. they have come many, many times. we shouldn't make them come up

here and spill their guts anymore. we should listen to them and we should act on it. i unapologetically support this research. shouldn't think twice about it. we owe this to our service members and their families. this is a really small but positive step in the right direction. i think the v.a. and department of defense need to coordinate on this research into this psychedelic assisted therapy. that's all this amendment does. i encourage my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member claim time in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 149, printed in part a

alabama if a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? m >> i have a message at the desk. the chair: amendment number 149, printed in part a of number 118-216. offered by mr. biggs of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, mr. biggs and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: i rise to speak in support of my amendment which cuts $300 million in funding for the ukraine security assistance initiative. encourage my colleagues to support that. the f.y.24 defense appropriations bill authorizes a total of $826 about.45 -- $826.45 billion. 3.6% more than the f.y.23 enacted level. currently in the united states -- the u.s. has committed

over $113 billion in military economic, and humanitarian assistance to protect ukraine's border. we can't fund our own border to protect our citizens from the fentanyl pouring across our southern border killing over 290 americans daily. and trafficking the mexican cartels are engaging in. so, you good still? ok. i'll proceed. i find myself asking this question, how is it that we are willing to send over $100 billion to ukraine and in this bill an additional $300 million but we can't spend the money or find the ability and will to secure our own border? with no end in sight we cannot continue to blank check the war when this administration said we are going to stay there as long as it takes, spend as much as it

takes. and we don't even know why we are there, but we have morphed into a regime change objective. i would ask what does that regime change look like? how are you going to get there? what is going to be the extend of our participation? with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. ukraine is a democracy. it is a democracy fighting for its life every single day. and the world is watching. the brave men and women of ukraine fight to protect their democracy. putin violated international law with his illegal invasion of ukraine. putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale in ukraine, including the senseless murder of civilians. even while they are in the hospital. he continues also to violate

international laws by deliberating targeting marketplaces, supermarkets, daycares, and apartment buildings. putin has also broken other international laws by permitting the -- encouraging, not just permitting, encouraging the abduction of ukrainian children to be taken from their families and their parents. the democracies need to stand together. and that's what they have been doing. it is the responsibility of the united states, the strongest democracy, and all nations that respect democratic elected governments to support ukraine's fight against the unlawful russian aggression. and that's exactly why we have seen such a global response to these atrocities. our allies, our partners, our fellow democracies are also supporting ukraine in this fight by providing tanks, donated by

allies and partners. air defense, artillery rounds, donated by allies and partners. fighter aircraft, donated. 100% by allies and partners. mid to long-range air defense systems. 75% donated by allies and partners. counter unmanned ariel systems -- aerial systems, 69% donated by allies and partners. 155 millimeter artillery system. 64% donated by allies and partners. armored personnel, carriers, infantry, fighting vehicles, 63% donated by allies and partners. stinger missiles. 52% donated by allies and partners. javelin, command launching, 52% donated by allies and partners. javelin missiles, 46% donated by allies and partners. america is not providing support alone. the democrats are together on this -- democracies are together

on this. i want to point out for a fact, when ukraine decided to become a democracy, to engage in the free world, they gave up their nuclear weapons. they gave them up. and -- they are just asking for us right now is to support a fellow democracy. i urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment, support the ukrainians in their struggle to defend their homeland. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. . it's interesting to hear that. thank you for those comments. explain to me then how this administration and allies have lost contact and cannot provide a full accounting of all the money we've sent and all the material we've sent. so, here's an example of that. when we talk about insufficient oversight of funding going towards ukraine, the pentagon has overestimated the value of

the weapons it sent to ukraine by $6.2 billion over the past two years. they've overestimated that. how have central african nations reported that u.s. material has been found in the hands of warlords in their areas? in their own countries, rebellious warlords fighting them with u.s. material? how is it that we've gone from supplying surplus to supplying our own inventory? so our own stocks are going to take in some instances seven to 10 years to rebuild, to put our own nation in jeopardy. the democratic peace theory was debunked 20 years ago. and that's the argument i heard today. basically the democratic peace theory. that was utterly debunked. this administration has also provided no explanation on what the objective is, what does it

look like? the objective is to stay as long as it takes, what does that mean? another 20, 30-year war? that we're participating in funding? not only as long as it takes, as much as it takes. we are $33 trillion in debt. our structural deficit this year is going to be more than $2 trillion, it will be that next year. our interest cost is $700 billion. everything we are sending to ukraine we are borrowing. it is our children and grandchildren that are effectively paying for this. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i have some disagreement with

some of the, i want to say opinions put forward by the gentleman. we do have oversight at our embassy on where equipment's going. the chair and i have been in classified briefings asking these very tough questions together. because you're right, we want accountability. and as we saw the president of ukraine, just when he didn't think he was getting the accountability he deserved from his military leaders and people in his government, he very publicly removed them and said, no, this is not acceptable to me. so the oversight is taking place and our allies are also doing oversight. i want to point out, as i did earlier, that this is an invasion that was brought on for no other reason than a land grab. putin's trying to put russia back as an image he wants to see it in the future. and who is watching him do this

and who is watching who stands up to him? well, russia's watching as to what we do. and we know china is, with all the chatter we're now hearing about taiwan. so what does that mean? that means that democracies have to stand together to support another democracy. as i mentioned earlier today, i'm a social studies teacher. take out a map of geography. and take a look at the emerging democracies in the area who feel under threat from russia. take a look at our allies that have suffered through world war ii with aggression from germany. and the democracies, germany included, learned from that lesson, we cannot be silent. we have to be there for each other. is a want to point out -- i also want to point out that the money that is being put forward, again, is for equipment and

training and we're doing that with nato. we're doing that together. so as i said, i feel very passionately about supporting ukraine and -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. mccollum: thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield 30 seconds to a great american, mr. crane. mr. crane: thank you. i rise in support of my colleague's amendment. look, guys, as my colleague pointed out, we can't afford it. the gentlewoman just said that all the money that we're sending over there is for training and equipment. that's not true. "60 minutes" just discovered the u.s. is financing more than weapons in ukraine. the government is buying seeds, fertilizer for farmers, paying the salaries of 57,000 first responders, and subsidizing small business. again, like my colleague said, we have $33 trillion in debt, it's no wonder we have $33 trillion in debt.

this is getting out of hand. and we need to stop it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. i'll conclude by saying, our national interests are best rooted in solving our national debt crisis, which has been determined by many national security leaders as being our number one security threat. i urge congress to adopt this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is oned amendment offered by -- is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. mccollum: mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i would like to request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise as a

designee of the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the amendment. first, i want to address some confusion surrounding this funding. this is not the same funding that is concluded in the supplementals for ukraine. this funding is not spent -- sent directly to ukraine. rather, it pays for training, procurement of u.s. equipment. congress' initiative in every single year since it was authorized in 2016. during both democrat and republican administrations. in july,ing the house voted to authorize -- in july, the house voted to authorize this funding at the same level. this started after the invasion of crimea by russia, we decided to fund this training for the russian military. or excuse me, the ukrainian military. not only would this amendment strike the funding, it would also strike the important conditions on funding. we've sent very clear message to the department, no blank checks.

that's why this bill contains many new oversight provisions, including notification requirements before funds are spent, a g.a.o. report review of the defense department's execution of presidential drawdown authority. a reporting requirement on increasing burden sharing for ukraine. and a requirement that the inspector general review the department's end use monitoring program. this bill also includes funding for a special inspector general for ukraine, if authorized by the final ndaa. the funding included in this bill is not supplemental funding, it's not a blank check, it has broad support. i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. it is now in order to consider amendment number 150 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 150 printed in part a of house

report 118-216 offered by mr. griffith of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. griffith: i thank the gentleman. i thank the speaker. section 8131 of this bill states, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to fund any work to be performed by ecohealth alliance inc. in china on research supported by the government of china, unless the secretary of defense determines that a waiver is in the best interest of the country. my amendment simply strikes out in china on research supported by the government of china. ecohealth alliance was the agency or the private company that got a grant from the n.i.h. to do research on coronavirus and they are the ones who gave the money as a subcontractor to

the wuhan institute of virology. this was not research being done on behalf of china, it was being done on behalf of us. the problem is, ecohealth alliance didn't fulfill their contract. they were supposed to get regular reports from wuhan. they did not follow up on that. as a result we're missing nearly a year of data prior to the outbreak of covid-19 that the american taxpayers paid to have. so instead of just saying ecohealth can't do things in china that's supported by the chinese government, my amendment makes it clear, we're not going to fund ecohealth alliance at this point in time. and to make matters worse, you think, how can it be worse, as a part of our oversight, energy and commerce committee in february asked for -- asked 41 questions trying to get information from ecohealth alliance. as of this date, we have answers to only seven of those questions

and they are the most general answers like, when did you get your contract with the n.i.h.? it's not the tough information that we need to do proper oversight to make sure that we never have a situation again where a virus occurs where we're doing research and we can't answer the questions of the american taxpayers as to whether or not it came out of a lab that we were funding and that we weren't getting the reports from. that's all it does. says, nope, ecohealth for right now, at least during this fiscal year, isn't going to receive money through the d.o.d. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to the amendment to have a discussion with the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: we've had this provision in the bill for the last few years, to prohibit funding for the work performed by ecohealth alliance for research within china.

as the gentleman's very aware of, because he's very knowledgeable on this. it's a global nonprofit organization that works to protect wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease. this is an enacted law and we've worked in a bipartisan manner in the committee on this. the gentleman's amendment, if i understand it correctly, now seeks to establish a full prohibition, a full prohibition on funding the ecohealth alliance inc. in this bill. while the amendment preserves, and i thank the gentleman for this, the waiver option for the secretary of defense to make a determination that works with ecohealth alliance remains a national security interest, i, as we move forward, would like to better understand any ramifications as we move to this broader exemption that you want to do as we go to committee to make sure that it lives up to what i heard you say on the

floor, to my understanding, with the waiver. i work a lot on the i.c.c. at the international conservation caucus, so i want to make sure that the wildlife work that we're doing is protected as well as the research. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward but i want to let him know i have a few more questions and we'll work on it during conference. mr. chair, i'd also like to just reflect on something that mr. crane of arizona said in our last debate. where he implied fertilizer and other materials were being supported by the united states government. and that's correct. but that's in the state department bill, so what i said about what we were supporting and not doing in this bill, i was factual with and i just wanted the gentleman from arizona to understand that what he was talking, i wasn't confused, it's in the state and foreign ops bill. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. griffith: i thank you, mr. chairman. so, here's bottom line. we have ecohealth that breaches their contract. so while they may be working on some wildlife things and having been once a pole holder on a mission with the team of british scientists to study bats in northern burpa, i'm all for -- burpa, i'm all sphor -- burma, i'm all for studying wildlife. but we have to make sure that those people who are getting american taxpayer dollars are living up to their contracts, living up to their only gaitions -- obligations to get us the information, so if something happens, when you believe it's a lab leak or it came out of bats, we pleaded the information that we paid for -- we needed the information that we paid for to try to make a better decision. they haven't followed through and as of this date, they haven't given us the information that we need for oversight. hopefully it will come forward. but until we establish that ecohealth alliance understands that if they're going to use taxpayer dollars to do research,

we need to get the information we contracted to get, i think that we should not be granting them awards. i did leave a waiver in, that was very important to me, because if it is a national security interest, i wanted to make sure we weren't taking that power away from the secretary. but i don't think at this moment in history we should be funding ecohealth alliance with any taxpayer dollars. and i reserve whatever time i may have left. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. griffith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 151 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 151, print the in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by ms. plaskett of the virgin islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 722, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, ms. plaskett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virgin islands for five minutes. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment would strike section 8149 from the bill. removing language banning the department of defense from classifying or facilitating the classification of any communication by a united states american -- any communication by a united states person as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation and manning the department of defense from partnering with nonpartisan, nonprofit outside experts to identify these threats. we know, misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are three of the most important and far-reaching

weapons of america's adversaries in beijing, tehran, and particularly the kremlin. according to the state department, russia has operationallized the concept of perpetual adversarial competition and the information environment by encouraging the development of disinformation and propaganda ecosystem. this ecosystem then creates and spreads false narratives to strategicically advance the kremlin's policy coals. there is no subject off limits to this fire hose of falsehoods. everything from human rights and environmental policy to assassination, civilian killing, bombing campaigns are fair targets in russia's maligned playbook. only truth disarms the disinformation weapons. and the house of representatives must support our government to

ensure that foreign adversaries do not use the american people to disseminate lies with the goal of destroying our democracy without identifying them as misinformation, malinformation, or misinformation. so here are some truths. the federal government of the united states of america and the department of defense that we are working here to fund today are unequivocally responsible for the protection of american citizens from all enemies, all threats, foreign or domestic. all threats mean all threats. whether the threat is ken nettic, economic, infectious, in cyber space, or main street. it's our job to provide the defense of the nation and its people. we must continue to come together to seek and promote the truth. and i urge my colleagues to approve this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. under the guise of fighting misinformation, our government agencies have become increasingly weaponized against america's right to free speech. in the last month the panel of the fifth circuit court of appeals ruled the biden administration anti-f.b.i. likely violated the first amendment -- and the f.b.i. likely violated the first amendment by pressuring social media firms to suppress or remove posts. it addresses the case of over 50 former intelligence officials misusing their clearances and status to interfere in our presidential election by signing the bogus hunter biden. the gentlelady's amendment would facilitate this continued war on the first amendment. i strongly urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentlewoman from the virgin islands is recognized. ms. plaskett: mr. chair, we all believe in the importance of the

first amendment. we all believe in american people's ability and right to be able to speak out. what we also need to be aware of is the use of misinformation, disinformation by our foreign adversaries, anti-ability of our government to label -- and the ability of our government to label that as such. it is not to stop people from saying t it is the ability for us to dell what is lies and -- for us to tell what is lies and what is truths. i sit on the subcommittee on weaponization of federal government. what the american people people have seen thus far from that committee is the weaponization of congress to be able to put forward conspiracy theories and lies to support power and quest for conquests over the american people. i would at this time reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady controls the only time.

ms. plaskett: i yield to the gentlewoman from minnesota. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you. i rise in strong support to the delegate from the virgin islands' amendment. we know these countries are seeking to influence our way of life. to define ways to divide us and ultimately make us weaker. we know that china and russia, they are very active in this. and even working to influence our elections and disrupt our democracy. this amendment is necessary to ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight against these nefarious actions. i support this amendment and i hope my colleagues will do the same. the chair: the gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized. ms. plaskett: at this time, mr. chair, i have nothing further. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the virgin islands. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. plaskett: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the virgin islands will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 152, printed in part alpha, 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? mrs. boebert: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 152, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by mrs. boebert of colorado. the chair: the gentlewoman from from colorado, mrs. boebert, and member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. mrs. boebert: i rise today to offer my amendment to utilizes the holman rule to reduce the salary of shawn kelley. that salary shall be reduced to $1. as the assistant secretary of defense, he's the principal

advisor to the secretary of defense and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness on all matters related to the readiness of our armed forces. in that capacity he is supposed to develop policies and plans provide advice, and make religiouses for total force readiness programs. reporting and assessments of readiness to execute the national defense strategy. like many of biden's bureaucrats, mr. kelly is failing at his job and the basic responsibilities. on his watch the army missed their recruiting goal by 15,000 soldiers last year, and all other branches were forced to dig deep into their pools of delayed entry applicants to meet their recruitment goals. on top of that, the army, navy, air force, and coast guard are all expected to fall short of

their recruitment goals this year. mr. skelly has been with the biden administration since the beginning and was appointed to the transition team. some irony there. in november of 2020. as the assistant secretary of defense for readiness, mr. skelly played an instrumental role in the disastrous and shameful withdrawal from afghanistan that killed 13 of america's finest. 13 american heroes. this embarrassing surrender to the taliban. a d.o.d.'s highest ranking transofficial, this delusional man thinking he is a woman, embodies and he spouses the wokism that causes -- that's causing significant harm to our military readiness and troops' morale. the military shouldn't be

focused on this woke agenda. and combat the -- combating climate change. with him at the helm of readiness, these misguided policy pursuits will continue to be at the forefront of d.o.d.'s priorities. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the focus of our department of defense, to defend our nation. mr. chair, with that i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in the strongest opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect when being addressed. assistant secretary skelly has served in her role admirably as she has done as her time as a naval officer. assistant secretary skelly is a

naval fighter. for over 20 years. i am a little upset because the lack of respect that has been shown to secretary skelly by the last speaker is unsure prizing -- unsurprising for me on the house floor which we hold in high esteem. a naval flight officer. for 20 years, including time spent in the pacific. while we are all know how important this region is right now, there is absolutely no basis for this amendment. the colleague who offers this amendment provides no real substantial reason why assistant secretary kelly should have her salary reduced. there is only one reason why assistant secretary kelly is being targeted because she is simply a woman. i have fought long and hard with many women before me and with our allies for pay equity. we still have a long way to go.

but i'm never going to vote to reduce a woman's salary. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from colorado is recognized. miss bobert: thank you, mr. chair. i guess delusion runs deep in the democrat party. i would go on the record to say that science is a friend in this case and, sure, if you want to call mr. skelly a her. his chromosomes are still x-y. we trust the science over here rather than delusion and playing dress up and imaginary games with our military readiness. our military needs to be lethal and able to gee fend our -- defend our national security, not pander to the woke extremist left and make up fairy tails. i reserve -- fairy tar heels.

fairy tales. ms. mccollum: when it comes to service of our country. we ask people to take a loyaltiy oath. we do that. to pass basic training, and to be up and fit for the job that they are called upon to do. they do that. secretary skelly qualifies in all those areas. and as far as the conversation that my colleague is having, i'm not going to engage in hateful rhetoric -- mr. chair. i want to focus on the admirable service that our transgender, gay, bisexual members do in an all voluntary army. they volunteer to put their lives on the line. they deserve the dignity and respect this house can give them. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from colorado is recognized. miss bobert: thank you -- mrs. boebert: thank you, mr. chair. there is nothing hateful about truth.

do i urge my colleagues to support my amendment -- i do urge my colleagues to support my amendment to defend our nation. i look forward to this holman rule being utilized to reduce the salary of secretary sean skelly, assistant secretary of defense for readiness to $1. thank you, mr. chair. i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: well, i'm just baffled here that we can pick and choose what science, what's not science, what is human rights and dignity and respect and what is not human rights and dignity and respect. i look forward to having a discussion on climate change based on science with the gentlewoman from from colorado at some point in time. with that, mr. speaker, at this point i thank all our service men and women for their service. their families that serve alongside them. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to. mr. mccollum: mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i would like to request the roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from colorado will be postponed. it is in order to considered number number 153 part alpha house report 118-216. for what purpose does gentlelady from colorado seek recognition? mrs. boebert: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 153, part a of house report 118-216, offered by mrs. boebert of colorado. . i rise in favor of my amendment which will reduce the salary of normal dillard, director of diversity and inclusion, management at the office of diversity, equity and inclusion of the department of defense to

$1. norval dillard is part of the joe biden and lloyd austin attempt to woken and weaken our military. he works in an office that should not exist, doing a job that also should not exist. our military is not a social experiment. and we definitely should not be treating it like one or spending taxpayer dollars to do so. woke ideology undermines military readiness, it undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity and sex. it undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. it leads to military personnel serving in specialty areas for which they are not qualified or ready. it takes time and resources away from training activities and

weapons development to contribute to readiness. unelected bureaucrats at the d.o.d. need to be held responsible for their failed leadership, which has distracted from d.o.d.'s mission and jeopardized the united states military's ability to defend our country. from the botched afghanistan withdrawal that left 13 american soldiers dead, to the implementation of a woke agenda that is weaken -- that has weakened our military and caused recruitment to suffer, bureaucrats like norval dillard have continued to put leftist agendas ahead of our national security. the federal government's obsession with diversity, equity and inclusion needs to come to an end. especially at d.o.d. where our brave service members volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to fight for freedom.

they don't care about the skin color of their brothers and sisters in uniform. they care about completing the mission and going home to their families. our defense department should have the same mindset. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the focus of our department of defense to defend our nation, mr. chair. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in strongest opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: dr. dillard has dedicated his life to service to the united states. commissioned in the united states army in 1981, he served for 26 years, a retired colonel after numerous command and staff positions. and i thank him for his service. his current position as director of diversity and inclusion, he provides oversight and guidance to individuals working across the department of defense on

those issues and -- on these issues and he has the experience to know where improvement can be made. the goals of the office of diversity and equity and inclusion promote the department of defense's culture of dignity, respect and values diversity and inclusion and readiness imperatives. the department executes secretary of defense direction to, quote, take care of our people. and that's about supporting both the service member and their family, regardless of who they are. it's about having their backs while they put their lives on the line in the defense of this country. the chairman and others in this room are fond of ronald reagan's so-called, and i'll offer up the quote, government's first duty is to protect the people, not to ruin their lives. rather than trying to run the lives of each service member into the ground, let us

concentrate on what should be the focus of this bill. ensuring that our military service members have the tools they need to defend our nation and to come home safely. need i remind everyone in the room, we are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. and the chair and i have heard why we're in the middle of a recruitment crisis. and many companies, private businesses are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. and what are they doing? they are opening up positions for diversity and inclusion to make sure people know that they're welcome in their companies. we want to make sure that people are welcome in the department of defense. we must find ways to attract young people, to choose to serve this country, to know that their service will be honored. if they feel that serving in different branches of the department will open them up to ridicule, disrespect or worse, why would they volunteer to serve and put their life on the

line? mr. dillard is trying to ensure that all feel welcome. and that he should not be vilified for that, he should be applauded. let's stop the attacks on building a diverse force that represents all of america. mr. chair, i remember as a young high school student, i'm not afraid to admit my age with my gray hair, 1972, all the discussions about women in the military academy. that was a radical idea. you know what the military had to do? they had to go out and they had to recruit and they had to show that they wanted the diversity, they wanted the respect, and i'm proud i do that with my military academies, where i have hmong and african-americans and people from different sexual orientations apply to serve in our country. they put their lives on the line, duty first for them. so let's stop attacks on building a diverse force. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from colorado is recognized. mrs. boebert: thank you, mr. chair. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that there is a recruitment crisis. why is that? i think it's because our brave men and women who put their lives on the line to serve our nation dutifully, with honor, they don't see a true commander in chief in office. they don't see true leadership that they can be proud to serve alongside, to serve under. i don't believe that our brave men and women see that they will be taken care of when they put their lives in harm's way to defend our nation, to defend our allies throughout the world. let me ask my colleagues a broad question. this office of diversity, equity and inclusion, did that save our 13 service members in

afghanistan? or did it distract from the actual mission? i heard from my colleagues, mr. chair, on the other side of the aisle that this was a way to ridicule and disrespect. well, i think it is ridiculing to promote someone who does not have the qualifications needed for a position just because of how they identify, their race. this is what's ridiculing. this is what is disrespectful. and i see this woke agenda, this d.e.i., this movement that the left has created, i see it as a way to erase women. i heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle talk about in the 1970's there was a recruitment effort to bring more women to our military and if that were the case today, if that were the mission today, to offer a more diverse military, and recruit more women, well, my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle would simply put men in a dress. put them in heels. heck, i got some red lipstick you could borrow. that's not the answer. the answer is readiness. the answer is that we are all equal under the law and you do not promote someone simply because of these qualifications. mr. chair, i urge adoption of my amendment and i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have? excuse me, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlelady has one minute and 30 seconds remaining. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. well, some of the remarks, mr. chair, that my colleague made, i'm not even going to bother to respond to because i don't think they are appropriate for this august chamber in which

we are in. the military only takes people who are qualified to serve and then after they've done their service for our country, they should still be respected. this is a very sad conversation that we are having. and i go back to the fact about diversity. and i'll use the example of a hmong in my community who fought along our soldiers in vietnam and protected many, many and rescued many, many of our pilots. they came here, they didn't have a written language. they came here, they didn't know about military academies. and they wanted to honor and serve our country, but they weren't quite sure how to go about it. so what do we do? we created opportunities for diversity and inclusion.

and it's amazing when you put a hand out to somebody and say, you know, we want you to be part of this great nation and you're willing to put your life on the line, we thank you for that. the chair and i know why we have a recruitment problem. i understand why we have a recruitment problem. i serve on the committee and i'm doing everything i can to address it and part of it is this office. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i would like to request a roll call vote on this amendment as well. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 154 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

clyde clyde i have an amendment -- mr. clyde: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 154 offered by mr. clyde of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. clyde: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment to the f.y. 2024 appropriations bill would prohibit the department of defense from using funds to administer, implement or enforce the proposed action by the department of army regarding the removal of the reconciliation monument at arlington national cemetery. following four brutal years of the american civil war, our nation's great leaders, president abraham lincoln, and future president union general grant, took great measures to ensure our nation reconciled and unified after the conflict that turned fellow countryman against fellow countryman. these unifying actions include pardons for confederate leads that are waged war, as well as

the restoration -- leaders that waged war, as well as restoration of confiscated property. what these leaders understood is that a nation divided against itself cannot stand. then in 1898, following the mexican american war, when union and confederate veterans fought side by side under one flag, the american flag, president mckinley declared in the heart of the south, in atlanta, georgia, the capital of my home state, that the u.s. government would commit to sharing the burden of honoring and properly burying the confederate dead, stating sectional feelings, i quote, sectional feelings no longer hold back the love we feel for each other. the old flag waves over us in peace with new glories. in 1900, congress authorized confederate replains to be buried at article -- remains to be buried at arlington national cemetery and president mckinley allowed for the construction of a new monument honoring our country's new shared reconciliation from its troubled divisions. in 1914, president wilson, a

democrat, unveiled this new memorial to national unity, which was designed by a jewish american sculptor. the memorial is topped with a woman crowned by an olive wreath to symbolize peace. beginning with the unveiling of the statute and now every year since, it is the tradition of the president of the united states to send a wreath to the memorial honoring the dead buried in a circle around the monument. this tradition, which shows tremendous national unity, has been carried on regardless of party or politics of the sitting president. in fact, even president obama understood the reconciliation monument in the context for which it stood, which was unity, not division. when he continued on the presidential tradition of sending a wreath to the monument. despite the bipartisan support for this monument, the renaming commission established after the -- or by the fiscal year 2001 national -- 2021 national defense authorization act overstepped its authority and recommended that the department

of army remove the memorial from arlington national cemetery. the renaming commission's authority given to them by congress empowerrings them to -- empowers them to removal of those that honor or commemorate the confederate states of america. yet as described previously, the reconciliation monument does not honor, nor commemorate the confederacy. it commemorates reconciliation and national unity. furthermore, the renaming commission's authority explicitly prohibits the desecration of gravesites. there are hundreds of grave stones encircling the monument. and i do not know how in the world these graves will remain ton offed if the department of -- remain untouched if the department of the army proceeds to remove the monument. former democratic senator jim webb who former senator jim webb who served multiple tours in vietnam

and later became secretary of the navy recently publish and op-ed regarding the monument. he describes his own journey of reconciliation following his tours in vietnam. he tell house he hosted a delegation of vietnamese officials in washington, d.c. to encourage them to be peaceful toward south vietnamese who had been labeled as traitors. he describe house, to make his point, he brought them to the memorial -- the monument and pointed across this to the lincoln memorial. to show them how the past can be overcome. he says if this is removed it will be erasing the past. i reck taking a stand against such divisive action and support

my amendment. ic thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to the the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: in 2021, congress created a naming commission to rename memorials that celebrate the confederate attempt to rip apart the united states to maintain slavery. the ndaa was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. in fact it had so much bipartisan support it defeated president trump's veto by a vote of 322-87. with a few remaining confederate

monuments and installations that have not been renamed removed will happen soon. as required by congress and implemented by the secretary of defense, arlington national cemetery is required to remove a confederate memorial and has initiated the process for careful removal and relocation of the memorial located in section 16 of the cemetery. therefore this amendment not only attempts to defy the overwhelming bipartisan support of congress but it is likely too late to even make a difference. congress decided, in a unified fashion, that it was time to move on from a regretful era of civil war and human rights acrossties. this amendment will do nothing to stop that. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collide: it would be a disgrace if this reconciliation monument is removed from

arlington national cemetery and the graves that encircle it are desecrated. with that i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. 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 new york requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order -- excuse me. the gentleman from georgia. it is now in order to consider the amendment number 155 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collide: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 155 offered by mr. clyde of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. clyde and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. clyde: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prevents any funds in this year's defense appropriations bill from being spent on section 370 of the fiscal year 2021 national authorization act providing a commonsense solution to block unnecessary and frivolous efforts to rename military bases across the country. as a navy combat veteran, an area of great concern for me is the einessential renaming of bases and military facilities. as this issue is not a matter of national security or an improvement of the military's combat readiness, the focus should remain on bolster our -- bolstering our capabilities and maintaining the most elite force in the world. instead they are considering plans to rename military bases,

two of which, fort benning and fort georgia are in my home state. it's expected to cost taxpayer dollars -- expected to cost taxpayers over $62 million. and would have a detrimental economic impact in the surrounding communities. take fort gordon, for example where local small business owners who take great pride in our nation's military have named establishes or attractions after the local army base. if the anymore of the base is changed, local entrepreneurs will be forced to rename and rebrand businesses. replacing merchandise and creating completely new marketing strategies and none of that is cheap. in fact, in many case, you may see the rebranding of businesses actually will cause the businesses to fail. in rural communities like those in georgia this economic burden would be catastrophic. and i know communities across the country will be confronted with the same issues if we allow the department of defense to

continue this reckless plan. i was disappointed that earlier this year, when i offered a similar amendment to the fiscal year 2024 national defense authorization act these amendments were not considered or debated on the house floor. however we have a second opportunity right now as we look to fund the department of defense. we must carefully examine how taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the department of defense and its policies. i adamantly believe american's hard-earned tax dollars should not be wayed on renaming military bases but should be focused on making our military the most lethal in the world. due to president biden's failed leadership and big government socialist agenda, our nation is facing an ongoing economic crisis. excessive washington spending has not only ballooned our national debt which just surpassed $33 trillion last week but is also -- has also inflated the prices of basic goods and services for our constituents. while running an annual deficit of almost $2 trillion.

it is simply unacceptable to spend millions of dollars of borrowed money to rename military bases and facilities only to undoubtedly burden hardworking americans and small business owners already struggling in joe biden's disastrous economy. i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my comrns amendment. thank you and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: two years ago we passed the ndaa which included a committee of civilians and military to rename installations associated with the confederate states of america. this amendment attempts to stop those recommendations. i'm pleased to see the economy has started the are naming possess, renaming seven installations with two more to go by the end of october. i want to provide context for

these renamings. fort bening in georgia, which was named after confederate general who strongly supported slavery and was a leader in the succession movement. now that fort has been renamed fort moore after army lieutenant general hal moore and his wife julia compton moore. general moore commanded the first large-scale battle of the vietnam war and julia compton moore was instrumental in setting up survivor support networks and casualty netification teams. and then there's there's fort bragg in north carolina. that was name fd a a former slave owner and one of the most hated generals in history. in fact hated by his own army and some of the confederate soldiers tried to end his life. he's also known to be a military failure. that base has now been renamed fort liberty. fort a.p. hill in virginia named

after a confederate general will be renamed fort walker after dre first woman surgeon in the civil war and the only woman awarded the medal of honor. renaming these installations helps us remember that they deserve to be remembered in a way that celebrates the true patriots of this nation who supported this country and who have contributed to the -- to its advancement. why would we continue to honor and celebrate traitors who were traitors to this very nation. they were also involved in horrific crimes. in my home state of minnesota, we have been renaming several buildings and schools and other areas that were named honoring at the time who we thought were great territorial governor and state officials.

but as history was finally taught in its entirety, we found out they committed atrocities. they were part of the genocide against tribal nations. my state, my community, we decided they should not be honored. and i believe that's also true in the case of these military installations. congress and the administration set up an appropriate and fair process to review and rename them. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. clyde: thank you. renaming does nothing to make our military more combat ready. in fact, it is a waste of taxpayer funds. our military defense funding should be used to make our troops the most lethal in the entire world. the most feared in the entire world. it should be spent on training not renaming. which does absolutely nothing but divert resources from the critical mission of our

military. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: when we name something, whether it's a post office, whether it's a road done by a local government, we do to honor something that's happened significant. we do that to show we're proud of this person. we're proud of their actions. and what we're doing with the renaming in these commissions is say, let's reflect back. why was this named this way? are we proud of people who led the secession against this country? or should we look toward the new patriots, the people who have served in the past and the people who are currently serving to give them the honor, the privilege of showing forward their courage, their actions, as we strive to be a more perfect union. so mr. chairman, i continue to oppose this amendment but i will

yield back the time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. pez poz. -- those opposed, no. in the opinion -- the amendment is not agreed to. ms. mccollum: i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 156 in part a of house report 118-156. mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 156, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i rise today to offer an amendment regarding the department of defense work force, important as we face a shutdown. but first i need to address two

of the biggest work force challenges facing the military, both wholly manufactured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do, not shut down the federal government. step up to the plate and govern on a bipartisan basis. i know it's hard. but the country needs you to set aside impeachment inquiries, ideological crusades and infighting to do your job. second, senator tommy tuberville's holds on more than 300 military promotions are direct threat to our national security and undermine the leadership of our military. for the first time in the history of the department of defense, three of the five military services were operating without senate-confirmed leaders. general and flag offices are being required to perform double duty and military families are having their live pus on hold. how are we going to retain

talented officers if their careers face a graveyard in the u.s. senate? buried under the desk of one senator who cannot name the three branches of government. senator tuberville's holds, which would require more than 700 hours of floor time in the senate to overcome individually, are an outrageous assault on our nation's military at the altar of our a far-right culture war. i call on my colleagues to join me in condemning this reckless behavior. but i digress. my amendment would prevent congressional my amendment would stop republicans from further attacking the work force. the anticipate -- amendment would prevent any cuts to the civilian work force that undermine our military national security. but follow along closely. defense appropriation bills routinely include language that says, none of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to reduce the civilian work

force, program full-time equivalent levels absence the appropriate analysis of the impacts of those reductions. this language has received broad bipartisan support. it was included in the 2023 omnibus, it's in the current f.y. 2024 department of defense appropriations bill in the senate, and it was adopted as part of other past-year fiscal year department of defense appropriations bills in this body and in the other. this language is derived from section 129-a of title 10, general policy for the total force management that states, the secretary may not reduce the civilian work force program full-time equivalent levels unless the secretary conducts an appropriate analysis of the impacts of such reductions on work force military force structure lethality, readiness, operational effectiveness, stress in the military force and fully burden costs. my amendment would restore that

language and legacy by prohibiting dangerous civilian work force cuts that do not prioritize those priorities. it's helpful to understand the broader context to appreciate why this is essential. the underlying bill cuts the civilian work force by $1.1 billion. the committee report for the bill refers vaguely to robotic process automation and artificial intelligence as ways to reduce the civilian work force. that's a low bar for due diligence. forgive me, but i prefer the previous standard, congress reiterated and endorsed, which was to remind the department that any such reduction in the civilian work force must first prioritize the lethality, readiness and operational effectiveness of the military. my language, my amendment would restore that consideration and that language. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the american federation of government employees in support of my amendment and i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. does anyone rise in opposition? mr. connolly: mr. calvert: i'm compelled to point out that the section in question directs the secretary of defense to achieve cost efficient personnel mix. the administration continues to grow the department civilian work force to a fiscally unsustainable level. the bill before us directs the secretary of defense to address the issue by noting the

unsustainable cost of civilian personnel within the department over $101 billion in fiscal year alone, in 2022 alone. reducing the civilian work force request by $1.1 billion, which is less than 1% of the total request, and achievable through attrition, to fund a historic 30% pay raise for our junior enlisted. a 30% pay raise, which they richly deserve. and directing the secretary to reassess man power requirements against core missions and adopt technologies that create a cost-efficient work force. essentially directing the secretary to abide by section 129-a. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: may i inquire of the chair how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. connolly: i yield the balance of my time to the distinguished manager on our side. the chair: the gentleman yields his time.

the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: well, mr. chair, i support this amendment. this amendment advocates for civilian personnel in the department, as i pointed out earlier in eye opening remarks, with -- in my opening remarks, we tried this once before wind and we did not see -- before and we did not see substantial saves. people who work in the civilian part of our department of defense, they do an admirable job. they work very hard for all of us and they are loyal to us. they are loyal to the department of defense. they are not loyal to a contractor or at the whims of a contractor if they decide to want to change a pay scale or do something different or raise the price of the contract and hold us hostage. so when it comes to the secretary to determine what's necessary for staffing, i'm going to leave it to the secretary at this time. and i encourage my colleagues to support the gentleman's

amendment from virginia, and i yield back any time i have left back to the author of the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order -- the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 157 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. crane: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 157 printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by mr. crane of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from arizona, mr. crane, and a member opposed each will control

five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. crane: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer my amendment to the department of defense appropriations act, which would prohibit american troops from being sent to fight on the ground in ukraine. the united states ought to be encouraging peace talks between russia and ukraine, not giving in to calls for deadly escalation that could turn nuclear. it's well past time for the united states to disentangle itself from this misguided war effort and start promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict. to date, we've shipped more than had $100 billion american tax dollars to ukraine. a country not known for its strict commitment to anti-corruption measures. sending money is bad enough. our men and women being sent to die over this conflict is unthinkable. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, to prevent american lives from being sacrificed. thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. crane: yeah, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentlelady from -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, thank you, mr. chair. i want to be crystal clear. the united states does not currently plan to deploy forces to ukraine in the ongoing defense against the russian invasion. the united states does not currentably plan to -- currently plan to deploy forces. there is no current or future year funding for the deployment of u.s. armed forces to ukraine in this bill or any other bill that i'm aware of. therefore this amendment would not impact any current or planned support to ukraine. however, this amendment would impede the ability of the

department to provide security aid to american personnel in the region. i'm not talking about in ukraine. just in the region, it with a impede it. for example, this -- it would impede it. for example, this would block security forces to assist in congressional or executive delegation travel to ukraine. i don't think that that was the gentleman's intention, but that's what this amendment does. additionally, it would hinder the department's ability to provide emergency security assistance to american personnel in the u.s. embassy if there was ever a threat or a need for an evacuation. this amendment would not change how the u.s. is aiding ukraine in their war against the russian aggression. meanwhile, it would change the way we protect americans abroad and we put our elected and civil

services in danger by doing that. so i strongly oppose this amendment. i don't think that this was the gentleman's intention, but i have to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. crane: i want to yield some of my time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields his time, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. i don't support the deployment of u.s. troops into ukraine. the ukrainians are doing an able job against russian aggression, they degraded the third largest standing army in the world and taken out 50% of the russian conventional capability. they're doing fine on their own. they don't need u.s. troops. i urge a yes vote on the gentleman's amendment and i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. which i believe is going to reserve his time. mr. crane: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota -- the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i understand what the distinguished chair of the defense committee just said.

he doesn't support troops, u.s. troops in ukraine. you know, that would be a vote we would have to take here in congress. but this amendment does so much more than that. and that's why i was clear, i don't think it was the gentleman's intention. this amendment would impede the ability of the department to provide security and aid to american personnel in the region. it would block the department from providing security forces to even assist congressional or executive delegation travel to ukraine. we have military escorts that go with us. additionally, it would hinder the department's ability to provide emergency security assistance to the american personnel at the u.s. embassy in ukraine if there was ever a threat or a need for urgent evacuation. so i understand clearly the gentleman's intentions.

this amendment does more than that. i would possibly ask the gentleman to see if he could withdraw the amendment at this time and remove the things that i'm concerned about in it. and then i would be happy to look at supporting not having u.s. forces go to ukraine without the congress having a discussion. but, mr. chair, unfortunately this amendment does so much more than what the gentleman's true and honest intentions are. so with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time. and i oppose the amendment. the chair: t the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. crane: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman yields time to the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> the american people need to observe what is happening on this floor. my colleague from arizona is simply saying that in the 88 -- $88 of billion we're sending across the river to the pentagon, we at least don't want

that to fund u.s. troops, boots on the ground, in ukraine. mr. gaetz: and there seems to be no guardrail that some in this body would not accept so as to stop our country from inadvertently stumbling into world war ii. i have a amendments upcoming to stop security assistance but this is the humblest of amendments, seemingly to comport with what the body in a bipartisan way has expressed. we do not want american service members dying in ukraine. that risks escalation, that risks accident, and, you know, it always starts with just a few security advisors. that's how we got entangled in the syrian ci civil war and we ought to be disentangling ourselves from ukraine and embracing the good amendment from my colleague from arizona. i yield back to my colleague. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, madam chair. once again, i want to be crist -- crystal clear. this amendment does so much more than what the gentleman who just spoke refers to, the gentleman

who offered it. this would prohibit, and we have members who are doing oversight, this would prohibit the military escorts that go on codels with us or go with the executive branch from taking us on those missions. i don't think that was your intention and that's why i'm asking for the amendment to be withdrawn and written in a way that truly reflects what you and the gentleman from florida who just spoke to, because i think you'd get a lot more support on that than saying that we couldn't even bring troops in if we needed to do something at our embassy to evacuate state personnel, the marines on post wouldn't be enough to do it by themselves. so i ask the gentleman to reconsider the way this amendment is written so that we can have bipartisan support. with that, madam chair, i'll just yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. crane: thank you, madam

speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i would ask unanimous consent that the request for recorded vote made by ms. norton on amendment number 125 be withdrawn to the end that that amendment stands disposed by the earlier vote, voice vote that was recorded thereon. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 125, printed in part a of house

report 118-216, offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia. the chair: is there objection to the gentlewoman's request? without objection, the request for recorded vote is withdrawn and the amendment is not adopted. it is now in order to doctor amendment number -- to consider amendment number 158 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. fallon: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 158, printed in house report 118-216, offered by mr. fallon of tox. -- of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 123, the gentleman from texas, mr. fallon and a member okoas pozzed each will control five minutes.

mr. fallon: i rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the salary of ms. carissa wing to $1. until recently she was chief diversity exy and inclusion officer. as a self-proclaimed woke administrator she used her authority to promote racist and divisive, quite frankly, hateful, ideology. in a tweet from september 23, 2020, she said and i quote, i'm so exhausted at these white folks -- f-o-l-x -- in these professional development sessions. this lady actually hat the caucasity to say black people could be racist too. i had to stop the session and give karen the business. if you replace the word white with any other race or minority group we'd have members on both

sides of the aisle clamoring for her immediate removal. instead she continued to serve unfettered for an unbelievable three additional years. moreover, the mission of dodea is to provide a high quality education to the children of service members. this is a position of great trust. ms. wing broke the trust of the american people, our service members, and their children. we should be focused on providing these young minds with a world class education, not indoctrinating them with divisive, radical and hateful ideology. i'd like to take a moment right now to speak directly to the children of dodea and children across the country to remind them of a few things. what you are isn't important. who you are is everything. pigmentation is immaterial. it's what's in your heart and on your mind that matters. further, america, to be american, it's not an ethnicity. it's an ideal.

you want to live your dreams in this country? work smart. work hard. stay focused. perserverance. delay gratification. and constantly improve in. 2023 america, you might just get there. because the secret to your future is hidden in your daily routine. it is not, nor does it have anything to do with, what you are. thankfully, i believe ms. wing saw the writing on the wall and recently resigned from her position within dodea. it is my earnest hope that this amendment sends a message to the american people that racism will not be tolerated. i served in the military. 30 years ago. it was based -- and the idea was you will advance on merit and merit alone. it is a meriting oncy. we didn't have any tolerance for any kind of isms. i wish we could get back to that and not be promoting democratic generals or republican generals

but rather american generals. the very building that we work and stand today, the statue of freedom right underneath is three words. e pluribus unum. from many, one. that's a focus that dodea should be promoting. instead of this awful and quite frankly toxic poison. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to withdraw my amendment and urge the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 160 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. gaetz: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 160, a printed in report 118-216, offered by mr. gaetz of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from florida, mr. gaetz, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. gaetz: thank you, madam speaker. this congress has authorized $115 billion to ukraine. my amendment would ensure that this defense appropriations bill sends no more. $115 billion is an astonishing amount of money. especially when you consider that our nation sits atop a $33 trillion debt and we are facing $2 trillion annual deficits. and it is not as if the $115 billion has brought this conflict any closer to an end. in fact, the massacres and the killing and the death continue. the next statement is so obvious

i can't even believe i have to say it out loud. it does not make the united states of america stronger to borrow money from china to give it to ukraine. i hear a lot of the war hawks in this congress stand up and say well we have to send a message to china by fighting for however long it takes at whatever cost in ukraine. the message we're sending to china is that they are engaged in a leveraged buy utah of russia and increasingly of our own country. we've got problems here in america. with our own borders. americans are watching as foreign flags are being erected in the middle of the rio grande river while our nation is being invaded tens of thousands over month. and yet we go spend all this money on the border of another country. i do not fear broken russian tanks rolling through europe. i fear russia's nuclear weapons and the risk that we could be sleepwalking into a nuclear conflict that could end life as

we know it on the planet. all for what? to live out some neoconservative dream in ukraine? give me a break. right now, a lot of this funding what we've sent for ukraine has been inflationary. food and fuel. this is -- these are the markets that have been affected globally because of this crisis and because of the money we are spending to extend the conflict. at the beginning of this congress, speaker mccarthy said there's not going to be a blank check to ukraine. but when we bring witnesses before us to ask them whether or not we're complying with our own laws regarding end use monitoring of materiel, they cannot say we are even following our own laws. enough is enough. i'm putting my countrymen first. i don't think we should send another nickel to ukraine. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in strong

opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you. here again is an attempt to cut off any support for ukraine as they fight to defend their country from an illegal russian invasion. as i said earlier, once again, putin is attempting to rewrite the map of europe through the use of force. he's doing so in violation of international law. he's deliberately targeting civil abs, as i mentioned, hospitals, day care centers. apartment buildings. and while he's doing that, yes, he is destroying the economy and livelihood of ukrainians in the process. putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale. the united states and the other democratic nations of the world must continue to oppose him. if we do not, then he or another authoritarian leader will try something like this again. yes, either in ukraine or

elsewhere in the world. earlier i mentioned, i laid out that america is not alone in the support of ukraine. our allies and partners are donating tanks, air defense systems, artilleries, vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles. this list goes on and on. so let's not abandon our fellow democracies. let's not abandon the e.u. and our nato allies now. let's not abandon ukraine. faced with daunting odds against russian forces, they have taken up a mantle to defend themselves, defend their values, and our shared democratic principles. leaders of -- they deserve our continued support. so i understand that the colleague has -- my colleague has a different view than i do. but i thank him for a respectful engagement in this discussion and i urge my colleagues at this time to oppose this amendment.

madam chair, i reserve the blaps of think time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. gaetz: thank you, madam chair. indeed this is a respectful policy dispute we have over this matter. i am grateful we are taking up the defense appropriations bill as a single subject bill to work through these things. let the votes fall where they may. but it seems the full sum of the argument against my amendment is, putin bad. which i concede. as a matter of fact, vladimir putin has sanctioned me personally. so i don't have to be sold on that argument. he's a bad guy. the question is, whether after $115 billion it's the $300 million in this bill that's going to really kick the door in. and there's been no argument that that's the case because of course that would not comport with logic and reason. and when my colleagues say, we cannot abandon the e.u. that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to my fellow americans who often feel like they are the ones who have been

abandoned. as we send $115 billion to ukraine and ignore what is going on on our own border. we also ignore what's going on with a lot of first responders. in our country there are police and firemen who do not know if their pension fund will be strong enough to support their benefits throughout their life. we do very little on that front but we have underwritten the full pension of every civil servant and government employee in ukraine. abandon them? i just don't think we should bankroll them. that's why i would encourage adoption of my amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> madam chair, i rise as designee of the gentlelady from texas, ms. granger.

madam chair i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to this amendment which prohibits security assistance for ukraine. the bill contains funding and conditions for the ukraine security assistance initiative which is different from the funding that's been included in supplementals for ukraine. mr. womack: this funding is not sent directly to ukraine but pays for training and procurement of u.s. equipment. u.s. equipment. congress has funded this initiative every single year since it was authorized in 2016 during both democrat and republican administrations. just last month the house voted to authorize the funding at the same level. madam chair this assistance and the partnership between ukraine and the california national guard is what enabled the ukrainians to beat back the russian invasion and greatly diminish russia's conventional military forces. i've been very clear to the

department, no blank checks. that was why this bill contains many new oversight provisions and funding for a special inspector general for ukraine if authorized in the final ndaa. the gentleman has often noted that funds used in support of ukraine should go to securing our southern border. i argue that we should secure the border and partner with ukraine to degrade russia while never tierk eye of china. we do not yet know how the war will play out but i do know that voting for this amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong time. i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the gentleman from florida has -- the gentleman from florida has one minute remaining. mr. gaetz: thank you, madam speaker. the argument my colleague made is what we have -- is, we have

always sent this $300 million. that may be true but we used to send that when we weren't sending $100 billion supplementals on top of that. i don't think that argument holds water. when my colleague says well, we can do both. we can secure ukraine's border and secure our border. my argument would be, can we at least secure our own border first? how about that? how about prioritize our own people first before we start going and engaging in misadventures throughout europe? i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: can i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentlewoman has three minutes remaining. ms. mccollum: thank you. i want to thank the the gentleman from arkansas who struck the last word. also spoke up on behalf of the chair of the full appropriations

committee. i have the pleasure of being with mr. womack in poland where we did oversight of the very money we are talking about right now. and what we watched was -- i have been in other theaters where we were supporting other troops. the enthusiasm, the commitment, the dedication that we saw from the ukraines who were under our supervision getting ready to receive training was outstanding. it was like nothing else i have ever seen before. we do need to do our due diligence. that's one of the reasons i opposed an earlier amendment which would have restricted the military from escorting those types of could he tells into the future -- codels into the future. this is something that in my years in congress and working on many international foreign affairs issues, when i was in germany just before the

conference, just before the ukrainian invasion took place, i have never in my life seen democracies so united to work together because they know of the threat of what's happening. and they want to make sure, and we want to make sure that we continue to give the ukraine yeas and nays the support they deserve -- ukrainians the support they deserve. i have a friend and whose cousin is going back after taking r&r after being wounded. the stories she's sharing and the stories i have heard from other people in ukraine. everybody is participating. 60-year-olds are driving the tanks because they can't be on the frontline. they are doing that and able to do that because of the support and equipment and training we have given them not only to fight against russia, but also to maintain the equipment they have. i thank the gentleman for striking the last word and speaking to this. and we need to do our due

diligence to make sure that the oversight is done right. i do not support mr. gaetz' -- get's amendment as offered today -- mr. gaetz's amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from has the right to close. the gentleman from florida is recognized. for 30 seconds. mr. gaetz: the runs of america is not the world's piggy bank. we are not the world's policeman. i applaud all of the enthusiasm in ukraine. i am rooting for them. but enthusiasm in this country is waning to continue to support all of that effort abroad. we want to secure our border. we want to see enthusiasm with our border patrol. and we do not support continued inflationary, escalatory, dangerous spending in this war in ukraine. i thank the house's indulgence for considering my amendment. i encourage its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i thank the gentleman for this respectful debate. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from. so many as are in favor say aye. by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida -- mr. gaetz: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 161, printed in part a of house report 118-216.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. gaetz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 161, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by mr. gaetz of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 623, the gentleman from florida, mr. gaetz, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. gaetz: thank you so much, madam speaker. this is an amendment to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions pursuant to this legislation. i'd like to begin by yielding two minutes to my distinguished colleague from california from the armed services committee, someone who has led this congress to try to stop the transfer of cluster munitions, the gentlelady from california, ms. jacobs. the spe the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. jacobs: thank you for your partnership on this important issue. many of us have this idea

american exceptionalism. that we are set apart from the rest of the world. that's true when it comes to cluster munitions and not the way we want. american is an outlier. we are one of the few that hasn't become party to the convention on cluster munitions and that's a grave mistake. they maim and kill indiscriminately. over 97% of casualties from cluster bomb remnants were civilians. 2/3 were children. that's because these bombs are small, colorful, and interesting shapes. so to children they look like toys. when kids find these unexploded bomblets in water or on the ground and pick them up and play with them, they could lose a limb or life in the blink of an eye. unfortunately, there is no amount of guardrails that are enough. these weapons are unpredictable and the human cost is far too high to justify. let's be clear, this isn't about one country.

this is not about ukraine. this is about protecting civilian lives and ensuring our national security all over the world. because sending these weapons anywhere makes us complicit in unavoidable civilian harm and creates blowback that undermines our national security. our partners and allies look to us and expect us to do the right thing. to protect the marginalized, protect human rights, and strengthen democracy this is what allows us to build and maintain international coalitions. if other countries don't look up to us and don't expect us to do the right thing, we will be alone on the world stage. i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to avoid all of these horrific consequences and support our bipartisan amendment to ensure that no funds can be used to transfer cluster munitions. thank you, congressman gates, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman creams back. mr. gaetz: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. artillery has been a critical part of ukrainian's fight for survival. cluster munitions fill a needed gap right now. u.s. production and inventory ammunition can catch up. the russians have been using cluster munition for a year and a half, day one. we should not limit the ukraines' ability to fight the russians. i note that there is -- must be a commitment for all parties involved to clean up any remnants after this war ends. but this amendment goes beyond prohibiting the transfer of cluster munitions to ukraine. it would tie our hands in future conflicts. it's not hard to imagine, unfortunately, a situation where we might need to transfer these munitions to our allies and partners, for example, during a conflict on the korean peninsula or over taiwan. finally, the amendment may

prevent the department from transferring munitions among military services, limiting the flexibility to support our war fighters. i urge a no vote. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. gaetz: i would observe that we cannot have a goal of creating parody with the ukrainian military and russian military. if that's the case send nuclear weapons. these cluster bombs are indiscriminate. you just heard my colleague say that when this is all done we'll be right back here on the floor appropriating money to demine the cluster munitions that we are now sending. which seems ludicrous to me. i yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member if she has any thoughts. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. ms. mccollum: i rise in support of this amendment. the decision by the biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to ukraine in my opinion was unnecessary and a

sad mistake. congress has been clear in prohibiting the transfer of any cluster munitions with a death rate rate of 1%. the legacy into the battlefield in ukraine undermines our moral authority and places the u.s. in a position that directly contradicts 23 of our nato allies who have joined the convention on cluster munitions. the legacy a misery and death and expensive cleanup after generations of use. i have been in laos and worked in other countries to clean up this legacy. the u.s. pays tens of millions of dollars annually to remove cluster munitions from laos, vietnam--a these remnants of war. they continue to kill and maim civilians. as a strong supporter of the mime's policy in ukraine, i must state the strongest possible terms my absolute opposition to the u.s. transfer cluttering of munitions. they should be eliminated from the stockpiles.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman has the only time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gaetz: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the bipartisan support for this amendment. i would also want to thank mr. massie of kentucky and mr. mcgovern of massachusetts on the rules committee for having made this amendment in order. i look forward to us working together to ensure that we have got humane policies when it comes to our munitions. to respond to the argument that there is somehow a taiwan nexus here. i study the war games and plans around taiwan pretty extensively. i have seen no scenario in which we believe the appropriate utilization of munitions in taiwan will require cluster munitions. it's largely going to be torpedoes, sea mining. cluster munitions certainly -- we are still de-mining the cluster munitions in laos. we can make a wiser choice now. and one that doesn't put any of our allies in jeopardy.

thank you, madam speaker. i encourage adoption of this bipartisan amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. calvert: i ask a recorded vote. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: madam chair, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 162 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment number 163 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 164 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? ms. greene: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 164, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by miss green of -- ms. greene of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentlewoman from georgia, ms. greene, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from georgia. ms. greene: thank you, madam chair. i would like to introduce an amendment that uses the holman rule to slash the secretary of defense, lloyd austin's salary to no more than a $1. and a dollar is too much money. let's talk about the job description of the secretary of defense. that role oversees the defense

department and acts as the principal defense policymaker and advisor to the president of the united states. the department of defense's mission statement states that with our military tracing its roots back to pre-revolutionary times, the department has grown and evolved with our nation. our mission is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security. secretary austin has not fulfilled his job duties. as a matter of fact he's destroying our military. during secretary austin's tenure, military recruitment has reached crisis levels of low recruitment. the numbers show that the army expects to fall 15,000 recruits short of its annual recruiting goal this year. the navy is expecting to be short 10,000 recruits. the air force is down another 3,000. this cannot stand.

especially with our government funding and fueling a war in ukraine that is leading us undoubtedly to world war iii. secretary lloyd austin failed america with his withdrawal from afghanistan. making american forces leave and retreat in feeling like failure. secretary austin also forced more than 8,000 troops to be kicked out of the military for refusing the covid vaccine. my amendment is a strong amendment and many americans agree. we do not want the united states military led by failure, causing us to be weak. we need to pass my amendment. madam chair, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia reserves. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: madam chair, i rise in opposition to this

amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: we have seen several of these amendments. i think, madam chair, you know how disappointed i am that these types of amendments have been proposed by the majority but especially this one. secretary austin has dedicated his life to service in the united states. for 41 year he is served in the united states army which began as an appointment to west point and roast to the rank of four-star general. he served as the 33rd vice chair of the staff of the army and completed his career as the head of central command. secretary austin was atoward the silver star for his leadership in the army's third infantry division during the invasion of iraq in 2003. he didn't have to return to service. for the nation after giving 41 years of his life. but when called by president biden, he served again. you may disagree with the administration's policies, as

well as we have done over the years with different administrations, bucek retear austin has done nothing, nothing to merit this amendment. while taking upon the job as secretary of defense, secretary austin has outlined his priorities for himself and the department. first, defend the nation. which included prioritizing china as a pacing threat and address advanced and persistent threats. second, take care of our people. to include growing our talent, building our resilience and readiness, and ensuring accountable leadership. third and finally, succeed through teamwork. focus on working with allies and partners, building unity within the department. each one of these principles should be policies and qualities that we support in our secretary of defense. no matter what administration he or she serves in. secretary austin has worked tirelessly to ensure that our allies and partners remain unite.

secretary austin has personally pulled together the ministers of defense from all over nato to mount an unprecedented coordination of equipment, training and tools that the ukrainian need to fight vladimir putin's illegal invasion. upon taking office, our relationship with the philippines was at an all-time low. secretary austin reaffirmed our visiting forces agreement which led to the creation of rotational access to nine total locations, strengthening our defense in the critical indo-pacific area. he's made historic break throughs through our cooperation with japan, leading to japan updating their national strategy documents which included security burden sharing in the region with a key ally. he has worked to cement the principles of a trilateral security pact between australia, the u.k. and the united states. and that helps us with our u.s. military position in the

pacific. he's introduced programs that will help our military personnel, for example. recruitment is at an all-time low but it's not because of anything secretary austin did. here's what he's doing to keep the retention and to attract people. in introducing universal pre-k which will cut day care cost for our military min and will. instituting increases in basic allowance for housing for active duty service members in 28 military housing areas that have experienced an average cost of more than 20% spike in rental housing costs. expanding military spouse employment opportunities, strengthening support to our families and cutting the cost of food at commissaries. each one of these efforts help retain our servicemen and women to our service to our nation. there of course is more work to do and there always is. bucek retear austin is making the effort and there's no need for us to make such a personal,

drastic attack by eliminating his pay. for these reasons, i ask you and my fellow colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota reserves. the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. ms. greene: i'd like to yield two minutes to congressman vanned oren who has served in the u.s. military. mr. vanned oren: i have multiple combat tours as a navy seal including two to afghanistan and that's why i rise in support of thement a to reduce secretary austin's salary to $1. to paraphrase a famous british officer's evaluation, second reair austin consistently sets low standards and fails to meet them. he remains in charge of the pentagon despite the fact that he's been responsible for the greatest degradation in the united states military since the vietnam war and the highest active duty and veteran suicide rate in our his are.

he's directly responsible for abandoning thousands of american citizens and our allies to terrorists in afghanistan and the subsequent deaths of 13 of our brave men and women in uniform in that fiasco. i support applying home rule to reduce the $1 simply because we cannot reduce it to zero. secretary austin could save further controversy and redeem his honor by resigning immediately and publicly apologizing to all the gold star family he's directly responsible for creating at the bombing of abby gate. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: -- the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. ms. mccollum: i'll be brief. the loss of veterans to suicide is tragic and coming from a family with many who have served, i am going to reunions,

military reunion, i know how serious this issue is but to put this on secretary austin, to me, is just wrong. it's disrespectful. because i have had these conversations with him personally about this. and i just want to remind members that the trump administration started the immediate quick pass paced withdrawal out of afghanistan. when president biden came into office he knew we were at a critical juncture to try to get people out safely. he was able to negotiate a small extension. but that was it. and so it's a share responsibility for what happened. in afghanistan. maybe the administration could have planned it better but the administration's hand, the biden administration's hand was forced by what the trump administration had put in place. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from georgia is

recognized. ms. greene: there is no excuse. you can't blame president trump for the failure in afghanistan. that failure lies on secretary lloyd austin, joe biden the president of the united states, and his administration. president trump would have never led our troops failure in afghanistan. would have never abandoned $7 billion orth worth of military equipment. and president trump would have never left the afghan people in complete ruin and be controlled by terrorist government, the taliban. that is a complete excuse. democrats need to stop blaming president trump and his administration for joe biden's failures. i urge the house to adopt my amendment, madam chair. to take secretary lloyd austin's salary using the holman rule which is a rule that allows us to fire failures that are serving our government and serving our country. lloyd austin is not serving the united states military. lloyd austin is leading it into failure. and with that, madam chair, i

yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 165 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? ms. hagueman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 165 offered by ms. hageman of wyoming. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. hageman, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. ms. hageman: thank you, madam chair. i rise today in favor of my amendment, number 165, to h.r. 4365. my amendment prohibits the use of funds to paying reremote and telework for the civilian and contractor work force of the department of defense. madam chair, at the very beginning of this congress, our majority brought the voice of the american people to this chamber. saying that enough was enough and that it was time for the federal work force to return to work. to this end, we passed the show up act. because our constituents were sick and tired of the lack of service from the federal government. while progress has been made to some extent, there are still legacy and recent telework and remote work agreements that keep federal workers who are supposed to be deliver -- delivering for the american people out of the

office. this includes the department of defense work force, which is allowed to work from home in varying compassties. in 2019, the office of the director of national security found that across the entire federal government, 4.2 million employees were eligible to access classified information. the defense department is responsible for 3.8 million of these clearances. of these clearances, for employees of the d.o.d., 20% are civilian work force and 26% are contractors. the d.o.d. works largely in a classified setting. its responsibilities are to safeguard this nation. how this mission can be fulfilled when when the employees are sitting at home is beyond me. madam chair, it is time for the federal work force, including those who work for the d.o.d., to return to work so the american people can receive a full and fair return on the variouses that they fund through their tax dollars. with that, i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. case: it says here none of the funds appropriated may be use for the purposes of teleworking or remote working for any employee or any contractor of the department of defense on a regular and recurring basis. that seems pretty excessive to me. i would recognize with my colleague from wyoming that certainly telework presents opportunities in some cases for abuse. just as regular work does. but we're living in a new world, we're living in a postcovid world. there's a place in our work force for regular work, quote-unquote, which is not so regular anymore. there's a place in our world for telework. i can certainly envision

legitimate purposes for an employee or a contractor of the department of defense to engage in telework. for example, particularly valuable contractor who does in fact choose to work at home and that contractor service ours desired by the department of defense. why should we limit the department of defense in its ability to utilize telework if and as appropriate? by the way, it may not be -- it may be not only about the efficient i have so the work but it may be more cost productive. it may be more cost effective for that work to be engaged from the telework perspective. we have the technology to do that. there are a lot of ways that we can provide for work. we're obviously in a significant recruiting and retention challenge for the department of defense. and if the department of defense wants to engage in telework or offer that as an alternative to satisfy its own needs, i see no reason to provide an excessive

amendment that rules out an entire option that's available to the rest of our society. for those reasons, i must oppose this amendment and reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from hawaii reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. hageman: i yield 90 seconds of my time to the chairman of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in support of the amendment. telework suses wases necessary evil to sustain d.o.d. operations in the covid lockdown but that time is over. main street small business went back to work in person years ago and big business is steadily ending telework policies. leaders across the country have found that full-time telework drives more meet, reduces productivity and hinders development of new employees. further, d.o.d. personnel must also access and work on highly classify national security issues. i urge a yes vote and yield back

my time to the gentlelady. ms. hageman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: to my friend and colleague, mr. calvert, main street small businesses engaging in telework today. it is finding the opportunities to utilize telework where appropriate. main street government is engaging in telework where appropriate. i completely agree with the concerns for telework in a national security environment. presumably if one was exercising flexibility from a responsible perspective, one would not engage in telework in the -- especially in the national security area. but obviously we have a great part of our federal government that does not engage in national security directly and why shouldn't the department of defense have this particular flexibility? so the -- again the excessiveness of the amendment and the know exceptions at all nature of the amendment, i

think, advise against it. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. hageman: thank you. i believe that my colleague on the other side misunderstands the amendment or the scope of it. the amendment does not prevent d.o.d. employees from working from home if needed such as for health or emergency situations. in fact the defense civilian personnel advisory service is responsible for policy oversight of the d.o.d. telework and remote work programs. these programs are administered in accordance with d.o.d. instruction, 1035.01. this amendment specifically prevents only telework and remote work on a regular or recurring basis. the other categories that accommodate health issues, emergency situations and more would be left untouched providing the necessary flexibility. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves.

the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: again, to my colleague, i'm simply reading the language of the amendment. on a regular and recurring basis there. may well be suitable reasons why telework would be advisable on a regular and recurring basis which is not health related and not very specifically narrow as she has pointed out. we have belabored this point long enough. i am prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from hawaii has the right to close. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. hageman: this should be a no-brainer that our federal workers, our employees should go to work. and in fact it's actually bipartisan. president biden called on his cabinet members to aggressively execute plans for federal employees to work more in their offices. the president and i do not see eye to eye on very much. in fact, very little. but in this instance putting

workers back in the office is common sense. this amendment would not defund telework or remote work for service men and women this amendment specifically prevents funds for d.o.d. employees, civilians and contractors. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. but the gentleman from hawaii has the right to close. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: thank you, madam chair. suitable oversight of telework by the d.o.d. is appropriate. something that we could engage in. but to foreclose it under all circumstances i believe is unwise. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from hawaii yields back. the gentlewoman from -- ms. hageman: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 166 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. jayapal: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 166, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by ms. jayapal of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. jayapal: thank you, madam speaker. my bipartisan amendment would prevent funding from this bill to be used to carry out the

defense department's quote, unfunded priorities list. this list that the d.o.d. is required to send to congress is simply a wish list of things that individual commanders and generals would like to fund. by definition have been determined nonessential to our national security. this practice does not serve the national security interests of the united states. it was not mandatory until the passage of the fiscal 2017 ndaa. mandating these wish lists only serves special interests in the defense contractor industry eager to grow their profits by selling expensive equipment that were not important enough to make it into the pentagon's own budget. this is corruption and a waste of taxpayer dollars. the practice has long been criticized by d.o.d. officials and lawmakers of both parties. push appointed defense second robert gates all by banned the list. strongly discouraging his generals from submitting wish lists to congress during his

tenure. and senator john mccain, chair of the senate armed services committee, publicly stated his skepticism of the practice. in fact, in response to a letter i sent to the department of defense on this practice, undersecretary of defense michael mccord said on behalf of defense secretary austin, i'm quoting, therefore, the department supports your proposal to repeal the requirement in 10u.s.c.222-a. that is to send congress an unfunded priorities list. these wish lists are packed with billions of dollars of excessive line items. this year totaling more than $17 billion on top of the $842 billion requested by the white house. the space force alone requested half a billion in unfunded priorities. almost all classified. meanwhile, we cannot verify that the money we authorize for d.o.d. is even spent responsibly because the department of defense has never passed a

budget audit. i urge my colleagues, especially those across the aisle, who are interested in fiscal conservatism to vote yes on this bipartisan and commonsense amendment. i want to thank my republican colleagues, congressman mcclintock and congressman davidson, as well as members of my own party, congressman garamendi and congressman moulton who understand that this is wrong and they have worked in concert with me to reign in this wasteful -- rein in this wasteful spending that has no benefit to our national security. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. calvert: i rise in opposition to the amendment. unfunded priority lists are critical tools to provide congress with unfiltered information on what the military services and combatant commanders need. access to this information is so important that f.y.2017 national defense authorization act

established a statutory % unfunded priority lists give our military services and combatant commanders a direct channel to congress which allows congress to make more informed decisions. i would just say, for instance, indo pacom, obviously has challenges dealing with china. we unfortunately are strained by our budget not to get the resources there that they would like to have. if resources come available, we would like to take care of those combatant commanders to deal with the threats they have. i urge opposition to this amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you, madam speaker. i yield as much time as she would like to consume to our top democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, betty mccollum. the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. mccollum: thank you, madam

chair. i rise in support of my colleague's amendment. we all support funding for our national security. but should any department, any agency, or any entity really get an opportunity to request additional funding outside of the president's request? administration's request? the service chiefs are before the committee each year to discuss their budgets needs. most of the commanders testified before committees also. congress is ablele to assess what strength and oversight what we believe the needs are for our country and for its national security. with the levers we have in place, i support my colleague's amendment. i urge others to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield to representative garcia of illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. garcia: i understand we are living in uncertain times. we are witnessing an unjustifiable war of aggression in ukraine and a global democratic backslide. but congress can respond to national security needs as they arise. we don't have to spend billions of dollars on what ifs. these risks are already built into the pentagon's budget request. but military leaders want more funding for their wish list, there is nothing in this amendment that will prevent d.o.d. from supplying an unfunded priorities list to congress, but this process should be optional just as it was seven years ago. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the time is controlled by the gentlewoman from washington. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from

undersecretary of defense, michael mccord, that i quoted earlier. the chair: the gentlewoman's request will be covered by general leave. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. speaker. i will just close out by saying that we know that the department of defense is necessarily a hierarchical institution where the top leaders identify the most important priorities across a very vast swath of departments within the department of def defense. and they are the ones who recharge and who we -- who we charge and confirm to be in charge of that appropriations request and that budget. what is happening now with this unfunded priorities list, we have had testimony on this in the budget committee and other committees, is that these lists are just coming up from people who simply do not have any authority to determine the importance. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back.

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from washington. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to ms. jayapal: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from rise? ms. jayapal: i rise for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington will be postponed. the gentleman from new york seek recognition. >> mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent that the request for recorded vote on amendment 154 be withdrawn to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by earlier voice vote thereon. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number --

any objection to the gentleman's request. the clerk: amendment number 154, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by mr. clyde of georgia. the chair: is there an objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, the request for recorded vote is withdrawn. and the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 167, printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i rise to offer amendment number 167 as the designee of ms. mallioitakis of new york. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 167, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by mr. d'esposito of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from new york, mr. d'esposito, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york. mr. d'esposito: thank you, mr. speaker. today is september 27, 2023. and because of the dereliction of duty of secretary mayorkas and the biden administration, this nation is under siege. we have record numbers of migrants coming into this country. estimated at 10,000 a day that we know of. and an unknown amount of got aways. in places like new york city where people like mayor eric adams and governor kathy hochul have celebrated sanctuary cities, we now see, in fact, that they have no plans to be a sanctuary. they just wanted to pander. now in places like new york city, we have migrants who are coming into the united states of america, to our points of entry. they are coming to the united states of america for a better way of life.

they are leaving their homes, their families, risking their lives to cross this border. and instead of being given that sanctuary, they are in old hotels. they are in empty wear houses -- warehouses at airports. this amendment today will ensure that no funds made available by this act may be used by the department of defense to provide assistance to the department of homeland security to house migrants or illegal immigrants or illegal aliens on military installations located in the united states of america. . back in may, governor hochul sent a letter to president biden and cc'd members of the new york delegation asking that he allow military installations to be utilized for housing migrants. and just recently we have seen

that there's a deal in place for migrants to not only be housed, but buildings to be erected at floyd bennett field. military installation in brooklyn, new york. not only is it a military installation but like many others throughout this country, floyd bennett field plays host to my brothers and cysters from the new york city police department. housing our aviation team our scuba team, special operations and many more. this simply says, no funds to be utilized given to the department of homeland security to house migrants and illegal aliens on military installations. i now yield time to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: i rise in support of the amendment. the biden administration is failing our country and undermining our security with the unmitigated crisis along our

southern border. this policy-driven crisis affects more than just the four states that chair a border with mexico. mine included. today every city in america is dealing with the influx of illegal migrants because the biden administration has failed to secure the border and is unwilling to enforce the nation's immigration laws. the administration' refusal to act has created a looming crisis at our nation's military installations which should not be used to house migrants. they are not designed or equipped for refugee camps. housing illegal immigrants on military installations negatively impact ours security and readiness. i understand that new york democrats have create over 200 migrant camps in the gentlelady's district -- the gentleman's area. and i stand with them on the need for real solutions to the border crisis. i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii reco

recognized? mr. case: i stand in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. case: i just heard my friend and chair of the subcommittee say something i completely agree with, which is, we need real solutions to the border crisis. that's true. but this takes a piecemeal approach that is unnecessarily broad and unnecessary in gen general. to our knowledge, there's no need for temporary or long-term detention of migrants crossing the southern border and if the claims by my colleague from new york is correct that's where there's debate. however the amendment goes much, much farther than that particular point. it says the military cannot provide any assistance to the department of homeland security to house persons on a military installation and so therefore we have to ask the question, is that too broad? let's take a look at a couple of

examples or clees one example in particular. it would apply in that case, the government-wide efforts like operation allies welcome. which was the evacuation of afghan refugees after the collapse of the government in afghanistan in 2021. d.h.s. at the time worked with the department of defense and state to use military installations to temporarily house afghan refugees fleeing imminent danger and persecution. this was a critical tool to save lives. there are, i am sure, other situations that we can envision in which we would want to access our military installations for very tailored purposes with congressional oversight, purposes that are under the control of the department of homeland security. so if we cant to have a debate over immigration let's have at it. if we want to recognize we have a real problem i'm the first to recognize that as well. but the amendment certainly takes a very, very broad approach to a problem that i think we can all agree is

definitely a problem. and rules out many other situations that in all honesty we would want the discretion to the d.o.d. so much better off for congress to retain that discretion to the d.o.d. where necessary for national purposes with congressional oversight and with very tailored congressional restrictions. with that, i yield. i'm sorry, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. d'esposito: thank you very much, i'd glad we're all looking for solutions to the failed policies of joe biden but what we're focused on today is military installations, our national parks like floyd benefit field where military operations actually take place, they are critical to defense. they are not equipped to house migrants. that's what we are focused on today. that there are no plans in place and that these plans, the ones

that they are rushing to, are not the ones that we support. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: thank you very much. first of all, i think we're trying to confirm whether or not floyd bennett field is in fact a military installation within the definition of the gentleman's amendment. but that point aside again, i would say that if we're trying to solve the particular issue that my colleague and friend from new york is trying to solve, let's try to solve that one. that's not -- let's not do so with a blunt instrument that takes away discretion across the board for legitimate uses of military installation under congressional oversight such as the afghan refugee situation. so we can talk about this on the floor, yes, it's completely necessary to discuss and debate. this but let's not -- let's not -- let's not overplay this

so that d.o.d. never has the flexibility to have any military installation used for legitimate purposes that we would all agree with. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. the gentleman from hawaii has the only time re-- only time remaining. mr. case: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 168 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk --

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 168 in house report 118-216, offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. norman: i cannot believe i'm uh up here having to debate particularly at this critical time in our military the spending of $1.4 billion in 2022 for money spent on diversity, equity and inclusion. a woke military is a weak military. the military's sole purpose is to provide for the defense of our great nation. our military's focus should not be the protection of the american people and our freedoms not liberal feelings. therefore my amendment would eliminate any offices of diversity, equity and inclusion in the armed forces and the

department of defense. woke idea ole undermine ours readiness in a variety of ways. it undermines cohesiveness by emphasizes differents based on race, ethnicity and sex. rerecently had 160 retired flag officers write a letter to speaker mccarthy and house armed services committee rogers about the dangers of d.e.i. and the opposition to it in the military. the officers wrote, we respectfully request that congress pursuant to its constitutional powers not raise and support armies and provide maintain a navy to take legislative action to remove all diversity, equity and inclusion, otherwise known as d.e.i. programs, from the department of testifies. another one, our military must be laser focused on one mission. readiness. undiminished by culture war engulfing our country. d.e.i. is dividing, not unifying

our military and society. another one. we have fought for our nation and are sounding the alarm that d.e.i. poses a great danger to our military war fighting ethos and is degrading war fighting readiness. social engineering, commonly called woke. i, has absolutely no place in our mill -- called woke-ism, has no place in our military. further, these differentiate members among racial and gender line which is runs counter to the military imperative to build cohesiveness based on common loyalties and standards. the army missed its recruitment target by 25% in 2022 at this critical time in the history of this great republic. otherwise known this is a bud light level failure.

and i would urge, mr. speaker, that this amendment be adopted. in light of an administration that has completely left our national vulnerable. and as president biden told a group of overseas air force airmen that the -- that the joint chief of staff had determined that the greatest threat facing america was global warming. the greatest threat was global warming. it's a claim that the joint chiefs had to walk back. he didn't mention russia. he didn't mention nigh chai nasm he didn't mention the threat of the debt that's engulfed this country. he mentioned global warming. and as i mentioned, d.o.d. spent $1.4 billion on their equity action plan. it's money we don't have and just adds to the national debt. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii rise? mr. case: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. case: before i proceed on the amendment we have confirmed to the prior amendment floyd bennett field in new york is not a military installation. do we not value diversity in our military? that's the question in this amendment. does it matter that we have a diverse military? does it matter or not? do we not valekyty in our military? does it matter? do we not value inclusion? do we want a military that represent ours society or a slice of it? that's the question. it doesn't -- if you say that you value a diverse, equal and inclusive military, if you say that that is a value of to you

it doesn't happen automatically. it takes effort. around that's why our military leaders over a long period of time now have valued the investment in diversity, equity and inclusion. they understand that a military that reflects the society that we live in values our military and accelerates and enhances and improves the overall service that it provides. they understand that that military in that situation will be supported by the american people. they understand that it will be respected around the world. where many, many other militaries, our partners and allies around the world, do value diversity, equity and inclusion. they don't have these debates in their parliaments and congresses. they don't face these attacks from an attempt to value these

atrips within our military. we need to back those up and that, yes, does taken a investment and where you think that those efforts are wrong, where you think they've gone too far, where you think that they are somehow affecting military service, then go ahead and oversee those efforts. but your solution is to cut funding from all of them because you don't value these attributes in our military