To establish a defense industrial base advanced capabilities pilot program.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024.

As chair of the subcommittee last Congress, I understand fully the difficult process required to put this bill together. That is why I thank the minority staff here with me today, Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray, Farouk Ophaso, Ben Peterson, and Mike Clark in my personal office, and Johnnie Kaberle and the fabulous minority staff that gets to work with the great majority staff, who work so hard for all of us.

I wish the bill before us was more focused on our job as appropriators, on training and equipping our troops and ensuring that our servicemembers and their families have their needs met at home. That is why it is disappointing to see the majority use the appropriations process and the Defense bill to push an extreme social policy agenda.

The riders included in this bill divide. They do not unite. Here are just a few examples.

The bill prohibits the Department of Defense's policy to ensure that servicemembers and their families have access to leave and travel allowances for basic reproductive healthcare. The Department's policy is legal under Federal law. The Department of Justice has concluded that fact: ``The Department of Defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for servicemembers and their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that DOD cannot itself perform due to statutory requirements.''

Why is it important that the DOD itself cannot perform due to statutory requirements? Well, first, 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 DOD 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 is not in keeping with the spirit of the Hyde amendment.

What does that mean to the nearly 20 percent of our force who are women? They do not get to choose where they serve. Eighty thousand of those women are stationed in States that restrict reproductive healthcare. If you serve in those States and are pregnant because of rape or are on a base that does not offer obstetrics and gynecology services, then you must travel. You must travel out of State for healthcare that you are entitled to.

This bill interprets the Hyde amendment in a way that was never intended. Many servicewomen and dependents will lose access to the exceptions of the Hyde amendment if they are not allowed to travel to seek the healthcare that they need.

This language, in fact, is a de facto national abortion ban, and I believe using our servicemembers 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 is why I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to strike this provision, but the majority chose not to make it in order. I wish they had. I wish we all would have had the courage to bring this to the floor and allow a debate that our servicemembers deserve.

The majority has also cut programs for diversity, equity, and inclusion, which will discourage recruitment from all across America. The private sector is 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, Mr. Chair, I find this outrageous.

How can our military academies tell the history of the Civil War without teaching about slavery? That is uncomfortable.

How can they discuss the story and history of desegregation in the military without talking about the Jim Crow laws that our Black servicemembers had to struggle with when they returned home from war? That is uncomfortable.

We should be celebrating that the DOD is about to be led by two distinguished Black Americans for the first time in history, Secretary 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, and that will impact who serves. The ban on gender-affirming care will drive transgender servicemembers out of the military.

Why, Mr. Chair, do we have an IRS 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 is not germane. Words matter.

Divisive riders will hurt the military, undermine 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.

Now, turning to the numbers, the majority has funded this bill at $826.4 billion, very close to the President's budget, but I am concerned about cuts in two areas.

First, the majority has made a $714 million cut to military climate programs and banned the assessment of climate impacts on the Department. We know that climate change is a national security threat, and it drives conflict. Ask our Indo-Pacific Commander. He will tell you that climate change impacts how United States forces operate.

Our military installations also face threats from climate change right here at home. Look at the $10 billion in damage from severe weather events on installations, like Tyndall Air Force Base, Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. This spring alone, a typhoon seriously damaged Anderson Air Force Base in Guam to the tune of $4 billion, and that is just the Air Force cost.

When we cut climate programs, we pay for it on the back end.

I also oppose the $1.1 billion in cuts to civilian personnel in this bill. Ten years ago, Congress directed DOD to cut civilian personnel by $10 billion over 5 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, and I am proud of that. I am confident that Chair Calvert and I can find a way to get agreement in conference 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 will undermine the force of today, discourage building the force of tomorrow, and leave us weaker as a nation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the

ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, which is so important to the defense of our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), who is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as a very important member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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.

Mr. Chair, everyone is welcome to serve in an All- Volunteer 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. It has made our military academies stronger for that.

The bottom line for me is, if you are willing to take the oath of office, if you are willing to put your life on the line for our country, and you can get through boot camp and want to serve our country, you are welcome to serve.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), who is a fabulous member of the Subcommittee on Defense and invaluable in helping us understand our challenges in the Indo-Pacific.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as we have no further speakers.

I say again how sad I am to be disappointed to see these divisive riders in the bill. They are all to gratify the extreme right of a few people in the 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 are not discussing our increasingly broken military healthcare system, which I have heard from military family and servicemembers, both here at home and when I have traveled abroad on bases; the lack of support for mental health; the lack of access, even here in the United States, to immediate healthcare concerns for themselves and their family members.

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 necessary the travel that the Department of Defense put in for women servicemembers and women family members to get their full healthcare 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 shipbuilding 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.

Now we are running out of time with the shutdown fast approaching. Our servicemembers and their families have made a tremendous, considerable sacrifice to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them a government that stays open and pays them on time.

Now, 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. That is what we have done plenty of times and what I am hopeful we will do in the future. For right now, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's get the appropriations process back on a bipartisan track.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 in the spirit in which this bill had originally been written.

If the gentleman from California has no other comments, I am ready to yield back.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), in support of this en bloc, which I also support.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear, in this bill we pay for our troops and our military to equip and do training, but in this bill there is no funding for salaries for Ukrainian troops.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for working in such a bipartisan fashion for these en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for bringing this forward. I wholeheartedly support her amendment, and I hope that it will be adopted in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for sharing his journey, and I am glad he is doing well.

I don't oppose the study of many of these drugs, but I am going to lay out why, in this particular instance, I am going to oppose this.

On this floor we have had many a debate about whether or not medical

marijuana should be used for post-traumatic stress for veterans and whether we should do research and all kinds of things, things I have supported. Time and time again we haven't done that, in part because it is a schedule I class drug.

The Department is concerned about a study involving Active-Duty servicemembers. They acknowledge, and I am glad that they do, that the benefits are being pursued by veterans. The implementation for Active- Duty servicemembers would be much more challenging at this time because it involves questions around clearances, legal hurdles, and the logistics that would just appear to hamper the success of a pilot program or study with Active-Duty servicemembers.

As I said, schedule I--I gave the example of marijuana--under the Controlled Substances Act means that they have a high potential for abuse and there is no currently accepted medical treatment in the United States for this right now. There is a lack of accepted safety and there is no medical supervision in a way we can move forward.

For this reason, the Defense Health Agency does not believe it could be implemented. I support working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to look at anything we can do to help welcome our servicemen and servicewomen home and to find the help that they need.

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 on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, 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 are fighting to protect their democracy.

Vladimir 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 to violate international laws by deliberately targeting marketplaces, supermarkets, daycares, and apartment buildings. Putin has also broken other international laws by permitting--encouraging, not just permitting--encouraging the abduction of Ukrainian children to be taken from their families and their parents.

Democracies need to stand together, and that is what they have been doing. It is the responsibility of the United States, the strongest democracy, and all nations that respect democratically elected governments to support Ukraine's fight against this unlawful Russian aggression.

That is 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 percent by allies and partners; mid- to long-range air defense systems 75 percent donated by allies and partners; counter unmanned aerial systems 69 percent donated by allies and partners; 155-millimeter artillery systems 64 percent donated by allies and partners; Armor, personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles 63 percent donated by allies and partners; Stinger missiles 52 percent donated by allies and partners; Javelin command launch units 52 percent donated by allies and partners; Javelin missiles 46 percent donated by allies and partners.

America is not providing support alone. The democracies are together on this.

I would point out for a fact that when Ukraine decided to become a democracy, to engage in the free world, they gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave them up. What they are just asking for us right now is to support a fellow democracy.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. Support Ukrainians in their struggle to defend their homeland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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 is going. The chair and I have been in classified briefings asking these very tough questions together because, you are right, we want accountability.

As we saw, when the President of Ukraine 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. The oversight is taking place, and our allies are also doing oversight.

As I pointed out earlier, this is an invasion that was brought on for no other reason than a land grab. Putin is trying to put Russia back in an image that he wants to see it in the future.

Who is watching him do this and who is watching who stands up to him? Well, Russia is watching as to what we do, and we know China is with all the chatter we are now hearing about Taiwan.

What does that mean? That means that democracies have to stand together to support another democracy.

As I mentioned earlier today, I was previously a social studies teacher. Take out a map 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. The democracies, Germany included, have learned from that lesson: We cannot be silent. We have to be there for each other.

Mr. Chair, I will also point out that the money that is being put forward, again, is for equipment and training, and we are doing that with NATO. We are doing that together. As I said, I feel very passionately about supporting Ukraine.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to have a discussion with the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, we have had this provision in the bill for the last 2 years to prohibit funding for the work performed by EcoHealth Alliance for research within China. As the gentleman is very aware of, because he is very knowledgeable of this, it is a global nonprofit organization that works to protect wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.

This is enacted in law, and we have worked in a bipartisan manner on the committee on this.

The gentleman's amendment, if I understand it correctly, now seeks to establish a full prohibition on funding to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., in this bill.

I thank the gentleman for the fact that his amendment preserves the waiver option for the Secretary of Defense to make a determination that working with EcoHealth Alliance remains a national security interest. As we move forward, I would like to better understand any ramifications as we move to this broader exemption that the gentleman wants to do as we go to committee to make sure that it lives up to what I heard him say on the floor, to my understanding, with the waiver.

I work a lot on the ICC, the International Conservation Caucus, so I want to make sure that the wildlife work that we are doing is protected as well as the research.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward, but I have a few more questions, and we will work on it during conference.

Mr. Chair, I would also just reflect on something that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane) said in our last debate, where he implied fertilizer and other materials were being supported by the United States Government. That is correct, but that is in the State Department bill. 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 about, I wasn't confused, it is in the State and Foreign Operations bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett). We know that these countries are seeking to influence our way of life, to find ways to divide us and ultimately make us weaker. We know that China and Russia are very active in this. They are even working to seek 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.

Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, 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 has been 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 surprising for me on this House floor, which we hold in such high esteem.

She has been a naval flight officer for 20 years, including time spent in the Pacific. While we are all aware of how important this region is right now, there is absolutely no basis for this amendment. The colleague who offers this amendment provides no real substantive reason why Assistant Secretary Skelly should have her salary reduced.

There is only one reason why Assistant Secretary Skelly 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 am never going to vote to reduce a woman's salary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to service to our country, there are a couple of things we ask from people: To take a loyalty oath, and they do that; to pass basic training and to be up and fit for the job that they are called upon to do, and they do that. Secretary Skelly qualifies in all those areas.

As far as the conversation that my colleague is having, I am not going to engage in hateful rhetoric, Mr. Chair. Instead, I will focus on the admirable service that our transgender, gay, bisexual members do in an all-volunteer Army. They volunteer to put their lives on the line. They deserve the dignity and respect this House can give them.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am just baffled here that we can pick and choose what is science and what is 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 Colorado at some point in time.

Mr. Chair, I thank all our servicemen and -women for their service, and their families, who serve alongside them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, 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 and retired as a colonel after numerous command and staff positions. I thank him for his service.

In his current position as director of diversity and inclusion, he provides oversight and guidance to individuals working across the Department of Defense on these issues, and he has the experience to know where improvements can be made.

The goals of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion promote the Department of Defense culture of dignity and respect that values diversity and inclusion and readiness imperatives.

As the Department executes the Secretary of Defense's direction to ``take care of our people,'' it is about supporting both the servicemember and their family, regardless of who they are. It is 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, so I offer a quote: ``Government's first duty is to protect the people, not to run their lives.''

Rather than trying to run the lives of each servicemember into the ground, let us concentrate on what should be the focus of this bill-- ensuring that our military servicemembers have the tools they need to defend our Nation and to come home safely.

Need I remind everyone in the room that we are in the middle of a recruitment crisis? The chair and I have heard why we are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. Many companies and private businesses are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. What are they doing? They are opening up positions for diversity and inclusion to make sure people know that they are welcome in their companies.

We want to make sure that people are welcomed 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 lives on the line?

Mr. Dillard is trying to ensure that all feel welcome. 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 am not afraid to admit my age with my gray hair--in 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 recruit, and they had to show that they wanted the diversity. They wanted the respect.

I am proud I do that with my military academies, where I have Hmong, African Americans, and people from different sexual orientations apply to serve our country. They put their lives on the line. It is duty first for them.

Let's stop the attacks on building a diverse force.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, some of the remarks that my colleague made, I am not even going to bother to respond to because I don't think they are appropriate for this august Chamber which we are in.

The military only takes people who are qualified to serve. Then after they have 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.

I will use the example of the Hmong in my community who fought along with our soldiers in Vietnam and protected and rescued many of our pilots. They came here, and they didn't have a written language. They came here, and they didn't know about military academies. They wanted to honor and serve our country, but they weren't quite sure how to go about it.

What did we do? We created opportunities for diversity and inclusion, and it is amazing when you put a hand out to somebody and say: We want you to be part of this great Nation. You are willing to put your life on the line, and 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 am doing everything I can to address it, and part of that is this office.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, in 2021, Congress passed the NDAA, creating a naming commission with the intent of renaming military installations and relocating memorials that celebrate the Confederate attempt to rip apart the United States for the sake of maintaining slavery.

The NDAA was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, the NDAA had so much bipartisan support that it defeated President Trump's veto by a vote of 322-87.

The few remaining Confederate monuments at minor installations that have already not been renamed or 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 and will 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 the regretful error of the Civil War and human rights atrocities. This amendment will do nothing to stop that.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, 2 years ago, we passed the NDAA, which established a bipartisan commission, including both civilians and military, to rename installations that were associated with the Confederate States of America. This amendment attempts to stop the implementation of the commission's recommendations.

I am pleased to see that the administration has already started the renaming process, officially renaming seven installations with two more to go by the end of October. I will provide some context for these renamings.

Fort Benning in Georgia was named after a Confederate general who strongly supported slavery and was a leader in the secession 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 notification teams.

Then there is Fort Bragg in North Carolina. That was named after a former slave owner and one of the most hated generals in history. In fact, he was hated by his own Army, and some of the Confederate soldiers tried to end his life. He is also known to be a military failure. That base has now been renamed Fort Liberty.

Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, which was named after a failed Confederate general, will be renamed Fort Walker after

Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, the 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 its advancement. Why would we continue to honor and celebrate 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 at one time honoring who we thought were a 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, decided they should not be honored, and I believe that is 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.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, when we name something, whether it is a post office, whether it is a road named by a local government, we do so to honor something that is significant. We do that to show we are proud of this person. We are proud of their actions. What we are doing with the renaming in these commissions is saying: Let's reflect back. Why was this named this way? Are we proud of people who led the secession against this country? 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 and actions as we strive to be a more perfect Union?

Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. This amendment advocates for civilian personnel in the Department.

As I pointed out earlier in my opening remarks, we tried this once before and we did not see substantial savings. People who work in the civilian part of our Department of Defense 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 whim of a contractor if they decide they want to change a pay scale or to do something different, or raise the price of the contract and hold us hostage.

When it comes to the Secretary to determine what is necessary for staffing, I am going to leave it to the Secretary at this time, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chair, let me 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 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 am 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 am not talking about in Ukraine, just in the region, it would impede it.

For example, this prohibition would block the Department from providing security forces to assist congressional or executive delegation travel to Ukraine. I don't think that was the gentleman's intention, but that is 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 Russian aggression. Meanwhile, it would change the way we protect Americans abroad.

We put our elected and civil service in danger by doing that, so I strongly oppose this amendment. I don't think this was the gentleman's intention, but I have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I understand what the distinguished chair of the Defense Subcommittee just said. He doesn't support U.S. troops in Ukraine. That would be a vote we would have to take here in Congress, but this amendment does so much more than that, and that is why I was clear that 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: the military escorts that go with us.

Additionally, it would hinder the Department's ability to provide emergency security assistance to American personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine if there was ever a threat or a need for an urgent evacuation.

I understand clearly the gentleman's intentions. This amendment does more than that. I would possibly ask the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment at this time and remove the things that I am concerned about in it, and then I would be happy to look at supporting not having U.S. forces go to Ukraine without Congress having a discussion.

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this amendment does so much more than what the gentleman's, I believe, true and honest intentions are.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again, I want to be crystal clear. This amendment does so much more than what the gentleman from Florida refers to, and the gentleman from Arizona who offered it.

When we have Members who are doing oversight, this would prohibit the military escorts that go on codels with us or with the executive branch from taking us on those missions. I don't think that was the gentleman's intention, and that is why I am asking for the amendment to be withdrawn and written in a way that truly reflects what both my colleagues just spoke to.

I think you will 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.

Mr. Chair, I ask the gentleman to reconsider the way this amendment is written so that we can have bipartisan support.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 125 offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to the end that the amendment stands disposed of by the earlier voice vote thereon.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, 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 is doing so in violation of international law. He is deliberately targeting civilians, as I mentioned: hospitals, daycare centers, apartment buildings.

While he is doing that, yes, he is destroying the economy and the 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 laid out that America is not alone in the support of Ukraine. Our allies and our partners are donating tanks, air defense systems, artillery, vehicles, rockets, and infantry fighting vehicles. This list goes on and on.

Let's not abandon our fellow democracies.

Let's not abandon the EU 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. They deserve our continued support.

Madam Chair, I understand 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 balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas who struck the last word and also spoke on behalf of the chair of the full Appropriations Committee.

I had the pleasure of being with Mr. Womack in Poland where we did oversight of the very money that we are talking about right now. I have been in other theaters where we were supporting other troops, and what we saw was the enthusiasm, the commitment, and the dedication from the Ukrainians who were under our supervision getting ready to receive training, and it was outstanding. It was like nothing else I have ever seen before.

We do need to do our due diligence. That is one of the reasons why I opposed an earlier amendment which would have actually restricted the military from escorting us on those types of codels into the future.

In my years in Congress, I have worked on many international foreign affairs issues. When I was in Germany just before the Ukrainian invasion took place, I have never in my life seen the democracies so united to work together because they know of the threat of what is happening. They want to make sure--and we want to make sure--that we continue to give the Ukrainians the support they deserve.

I have a friend who is returning home from just visiting, and her cousin is going back after taking some R&R after being wounded. The stories that she is sharing and the stories that I have heard from other people in Ukraine is everybody is participating; 60-year-olds are driving the tanks because they can't be out there on the frontlines. They are doing that, and they are able to do that because of the support and the equipment and the training that we have given them, not only to fight against Russia, but to also 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's amendment as offered today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for this respectful debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to the Ukraine, in my opinion, was unnecessary and a sad mistake.

Congress has been clear in prohibiting the transfer of any cluster munitions with a dud rate greater than 1 percent.

The legacy of U.S. cluster munitions 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 of cluster bombs is misery, death, and an expensive cleanup after generations of use, and I have been in Laos, and I have worked with other countries to clean up this legacy.

As has been pointed out, the U.S. pays tens of millions of dollars annually to remove cluster munitions from Laos and the Vietnam area. These remnants of war continue to kill and maim civilians as we are here today.

As a strong supporter of the Biden administration's policy in Ukraine, I must state in the strongest possible terms my absolute opposition to the U.S. transferring cluster munitions. These weapons should be eliminated from the stockpiles.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, 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 years, he served in the United States Army, which began as an appointment to West Point and rose to the rank of four-star general. He served as the 33rd vice chief of the staff of the Army and completed his career as the head of Central Command.

Secretary Austin was awarded the Silver Star for his leadership in the Army's 3rd 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 our careers with different administrations, but Secretary Austin has done nothing to merit this amendment.

Upon taking the job of 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, this includes growing our talent, building our resilience and our readiness and ensuring accountable leadership.

Third, and finally, succeed through teamwork. Focus on working with allies and partners and 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 united.

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 Ukrainians 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 a rotational access to nine total locations, strengthening our defense in the critical Indo-Pacific area.

He has made historic breakthroughs through our cooperation with Japan, leading to Japan updating their national strategy documents, which increases 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 has introduced programs that will help our military personnel, for example. As pointed out, recruitment is at an all-time low, but it is not because of anything Secretary Austin did.

Here is what he is doing to keep retention and attract military personnel: introducing universal pre-K, which will cut daycare costs for our military men and women; instituting increases in basic allowance for housing for Active-Duty servicemembers in 28 military housing areas that have experienced an average cost of more than 20 percent 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 in service to our Nation.

There, of course, is more work to do, and there always is, but Secretary Austin is making the effort, and there is 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.

Madam Chair, I will be brief. The loss of our veterans to suicide is tragic. Coming from a family with many who have served, and in going to military reunions, I know how serious this issue is. To put this on Secretary Austin, to me, is just wrong, and it is disrespectful. I have had these conversations with him personally about this.

I remind Members that the Trump administration started the immediate, quick, fast-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.

It is a shared responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan.

Maybe the administration could have planned it better, but the Biden administration's hand was forced by what the Trump administration had put into action.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4365, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4365, the fiscal year 2024 Defense Appropriations bill, which is a result of months of hearings, briefings, and engagements by all members of the subcommittee.

To 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 the fiscal year 2023 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, was early to when the funds were needed, had unjustified cost growth, or did not directly support DOD's mission would not be funded in the bill.

It is our constitutional obligation of Congress and this committee in particular to ensure the proper and appropriate use of taxpayer funds. At a time when the Department of Defense leadership is more focused on cultural issues than its warfighting mission, this obligation is more critical than ever.

I am 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 reinvests these funds into warfighting capabilities and additional support for our servicemembers.

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 workforce; creating a culture of innovation; enhancing oversight of all programs to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars; and taking care of servicemembers and their families.

To counter China, this bill doubles funding for the International Security Cooperation Programs for Taiwan, provides an additional $200 million to accelerate the delivery of the E-7, prohibits the decommissioning of four ships to grow the fleet, adds aircraft like the F-35 and the CH-53K, continues investments in next-generation platforms, and supports recapitalization of the nuclear triad.

To enhance DOD'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 account, including increased funding for counternarcotics support, demand reduction, the National Guard Counterdrug Program, and the National Guard Counterdrug Schools. The bill also moves Mexico into the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility, which will foster a more holistic approach to Latin- American security issues.

To drive reforms to the Department's workforce, this bill cuts over $1 billion from the budget request for the Department's civilian workforce. This bill accomplishes this goal through attrition while exempting employees engaged in shipyard, depot, healthcare, and 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 DOD reported attrition rates as high as 14 percent. This bill directs DOD to adopt smart business practices to become more effective and efficient, which is desperately needed.

The bill also mandates a reassessment of DOD's manpower 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 physically sustainable and efficient workforce 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 warfighters. The bill focuses on near-term delivery of capability and 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.

To bridge the valley of death, the bill includes $300 million to expand the successful procurement pilot program, APFIT. Further, it creates a new portfolio to rapidly field commercial technologies for the warfighter through nontraditional entities within the Department.

To get the Department focused on its warfighting mission and away from culture wars, the bill includes a number of new general provisions to 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 long-standing 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 if we fail to invest in our most important resource, our servicemembers. With changes in this bill, junior enlisted servicemembers will receive an average pay increase of 30 percent. This will have a significant impact on recruitment, retention, and will improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. I was shocked to see that the Biden administration opposed a pay increase in their Statement of Administration Policy.

As an appropriator, it is our responsibility to ensure our military has the resources necessary to deter conflict and, if we do get into a fight, that we win and they lose. This bill makes it clear to any adversary that challenging the United States military is not in their best interest.

Before I close, I will comment on the number of amendments we have received for this bill. I am supportive of this open, transparent, and inclusive process. However, we 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 thank all the staff for the incredible work they do to vet the budget request, work with the Members, put forward recommendations, and assemble the final product.

As my ranking member and former chair, Ms. McCollum, knows, putting together this bill is not an easy task, so I thank her and her staff for their cooperation.

This is a strong bill for our servicemembers 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.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let's be clear about what critical race theory is. It is a divisive, leftwing intellectual construct that advances the notion that racism is systematic in our country's institutions. 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 an individual feeling discomfort, guilt, or anguish. They claim that the bill will prohibit teaching uncomfortable historical truths, but they always omit the last part of that statement, which is ``on account of that individual's race or sex.''

Do my friends on the other side really want to fund activities that debase individuals because of their race or sex? I don't think so. I reject it, and this bill rejects it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mike Garcia), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a champion for our members in the military.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, to my friend, we fund resilience in this bill. What we don't fund is electrifying Bradleys and tanks, which makes no sense.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I know that eventually we will 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 those kinds of decisions. I chose the ships.

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.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer an amendment en bloc.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments supported by both sides.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer amendment en bloc.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan).

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments supported by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a retired Navy SEAL.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bill has a constrained top line. I cannot support directing $50 million to a pilot program.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in 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, I was the chair of the Space and Aeronautics Committee at the time, and NASA and industry spent more than a billion dollars on such a concept and concluded that it wasn't practical or feasible.

I am not aware of any facts that changed that conclusion. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, 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 included in the supplementals for Ukraine. This funding is not sent directly to Ukraine. Rather, it pays for training and procurement of U.S. equipment.

Congress has funded this initiative in every single year since it was authorized in 2016 during both Democrat and Republican administrations. In July, the House voted to authorize this funding at the same level. After the invasion of Crimea by Russia, we decided to fund this training for the Ukrainian military.

Not only would this amendment strike the funding, it would also strike the important conditions on funding. We have sent a very clear message to the Department, no blank checks. That is why this bill contains many new oversight provisions, including notification requirements before funds are spent, a GAO 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 is not a blank check. It has broad support. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 150 Offered by Mr. Griffith

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, 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, a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Biden administration and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media firms to suppress or remove posts.

The bill 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 letter.

The gentlewoman'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.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary.

Section 129(a) has long been codified in Title 10. However, I am compelled to point out that the section in question directs the Secretary of Defense to achieve a cost-efficient personnel mix.

The administration has failed in this regard and continues to grow the Department civilian workforce 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 2022 alone.

Reducing the civilian workforce request by $1.1 billion, which is less than 1 percent of the total request, and achievable through attrition, to fund a historic 30-percent pay raise for our junior enlisted--a 30-percent pay raise which they richly deserve--and directing the Secretary to reassess manpower requirements against core missions and adopt technology to create a cost-efficient workforce, is essentially directing the Secretary to abide by section 129(a).

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, 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 percent of the Russian conventional capability. They are doing fine on their own. They don't need U.S. troops.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Artillery has been a critical part of Ukrainians' fight for survival. Cluster munitions fill a needed gap right now until the U.S. production and inventory of 155 ammunition can catch up.

The Russians have been using cluster munitions for 1\1/2\ years--from day one. We should not limit Ukrainians' ability to fight the Russians.

I also note that there must be a commitment for all parties involved to clean up any remnants after this war ends.

This amendment goes beyond prohibiting the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine and would tie our hands in future conflicts.

It is 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 used munitions among the military services, limiting the flexibility to support our war fighters. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Regular telework was a necessary evil to sustain DOD operations during 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 full telework policies.

Leaders across the country have found that full-time telework drives more meetings, reduces productivity, and hinders the development of new employees.

Further, DOD personnel must also access and work on highly classified national security issues.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4365--the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024.

This offensive attempt at an appropriations bill is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan and damaging policies under our noses.

H.R. 4365, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the Department of Defense, however, does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who sit on the very committee this bill originated from.

In order to further promote a culture war, the members who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.

First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive healthcare regardless of their station.

Women currently make up 1 in 5 members of our military.

Denying them their previously promised ability to check their reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly irresponsible.

The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would strip away.

Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly victimized by Republican agendas around the country.

Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with respect and equality, which this bill does not do.

This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender dysphoria.

Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a serious issue and has led to 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary young people attempting suicide in the past year.

Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect the wellbeing of ALL citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and ideologies.

The language in this legislation would further embolden those who wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.

This is unacceptable.

The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not promote the diversity of our nation but rather seeks to suppress it.

This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way Republicans sought to eliminate ``Critical Race Theory'' or ``CRT''.

Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in education.

Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society; it is not an attack on white people for their history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.

Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash over the negative to present a false narrative.

At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected accurately in the history of this multicultural nation.

Another issue with this Defense Appropriations bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt military equipment to be more climate friendly.

Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and efforts.

The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.

It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States Army.

This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a net zero future.

In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than most countries.

But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to scale back on their emissions, certain members in Congress want to limit their choice.

One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the Jackson Lee Amendment [No. 90/No. 233] to H.R. 4365 that was made in order by the committee.

The Jackson Lee Amendment [No. 90/No. 233] to H.R. 4365 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, who are up to 20-40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.

I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.

This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.

Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I am very proud of the work that I and Congress have done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen

and women, but there are still improvements to be made.

The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.

While this amendment is important, the negatives of this defense appropriations bill vastly outweigh this positive amendment--which is why H.R. 4365 must be voted down.

Access to abortion and fertility care is essential to a person's freedom, including for service members, to make decisions about their health and well-being, and having control over their economic security.

Anti-abortion policymakers want to take away service members' ability to make personal decisions about their health and safety.

We must defend their freedom to control their own bodies, lives, and futures.

These attacks on the Department of Defense's policies make it crystal clear: anti-abortion lawmakers will take any action to ensure people cannot access abortion care.

Anti-abortion lawmakers are pushing an extreme agenda to take away service members' freedom and autonomy, all while trying to claim they support those who serve.

Our service members fight and sacrifice for our freedoms.

Now, as lawmakers, we should be working to ensure to protect their freedoms--not trying to take their rights away.

Access to reproductive health care, including abortion and fertility care, is critical to safety and well-being.

As policymakers, we must ensure that all service members can access abortion care without barriers.

We aren't truly free unless we can control our own bodies, lives, and futures.

Our laws and policies should protect our rights, not try to control and dehumanize us.

The numbers are clear in the devastating impact this measure would have on those serving America.

The Military Health System serves approximately 1.62 million women of reproductive age (15-45), including service members, retirees, and their dependents.

As of 2021, there were 116,970 U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed in Texas, the third most of any state in the Nation.

With Texas being the home to 59 military bases, active military personnel make up 422 out of every 100,000 people among Texas residents--the 16th highest share concentration among the 50 states.

There are currently 2,369,990 Military Health System beneficiaries living in one of the 14 states where abortion is either wholly or almost fully restricted or unavailable--with the state of Texas sadly being one of those states.

The percentage of active-duty service women who have no or severely restricted access to abortion care has increased to 46 percent.

This means that roughly half of all women currently serving in America's active-duty military have restricted access to the full suite of reproductive health care.

As of 2021, there were more than 708,000 Department of Defense civilians in the continental United States, over 250,000 of whom are women.

Roughly 275,000 Department of Defense civilians live in states with a full ban or extreme restrictions on access to abortion, and of those civilians, over 81,000 are women.

Similar to their active-duty counterparts, nearly 43 percent of civilian women employed by Department of Defense will have no access to abortion or will have their access severely curtailed in their home states.

An estimated several thousand transgender men who may require abortion care also serve on active duty in the Armed Forces and in the reserve components, in addition to nonbinary members and those who identify with a different gender.

We cannot continue to deny our service members their most basic and fundamental healthcare needs.

It must stop now, and it must stop with the voting down of this severely harmful and outrageous bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.

However, I am particularly concerned as we move forward. This bill directly impacts the men and women who have unselfishly put on the uniform.

I am 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.

First, it is important for them to know that the members of the United States military, women in particular--1 in 5 members of the military are women--will be blocked from reproductive services that are necessary. Those women, in particular, that 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 healthcare.

Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with military preparedness and should not be involved. In addition, the general has offered a commitment to electric vehicles, but yet this bill cuts $714 million.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to say I do not want a government shutdown, but I would like us to do the right thing. Democrats don't want a government shutdown. We are obviously fighting against those who are getting direction from the former President who says to shut it down.

I am 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 who are 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.

Mr. Chair, I offer my appreciation to both the military and 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 is called triple negative breast cancer--that targets women.

Mr. Chair, 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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] to H.R. 4365--the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.

The Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] is a simple and straightforward amendment in an unfortunate and distracting appropriations bill.

Namely, the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] 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, who are up to 20-40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.

I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.

The Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.

Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I am very proud of the work that I and Congress have done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, but there are still improvements to be made.

The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.

Our service members fight and sacrifice for our freedoms.

Now, as lawmakers, we should be working to ensure to protect their lives and freedoms--not trying to take their rights away.

While the negatives of this defense appropriations bill disappointedly outweigh my positive amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233]--notwithstanding my strong opposition and encouragement to vote down the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment to the FY24 Defense appropriations bill would simply prohibit the Department of Defense from using funds to administer, implement, or enforce the proposed action by the Department of the Army regarding the removal of the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery.

Following 4 brutal years of the American Civil War, our Nation's great leaders, President Abraham Lincoln and future President Union General Ulysses S. Grant, took great measures to ensure that our Nation reconciled and unified after the conflict that turned fellow countryman against fellow countryman. These unifying actions included pardons for Confederate leaders that waged war as well as the restoration of confiscated property.

What these great American leaders understood is that a nation divided against itself cannot stand.

Then, in 1898, following the Spanish-American War, where 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 feeling no longer holds back the love we feel for each other. The old flag waves over us in peace with new glories.''

In 1900, Congress authorized Confederate remains to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. In 1906, President McKinley allowed for the construction of a new monument honoring our country's new shared reconciliation from its troubled divisions.

In 1914, President Woodrow 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 statue 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 the Presidential tradition of sending a wreath to the monument.

Despite the bipartisan support for this monument, the renaming commission established by the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act overstepped its legislative authority and recommended that the Department of the Army remove the memorial from Arlington National Cemetery. The renaming commission's authority given to them by Congress empowers them to recommend the removal of ``names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia 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 gravestones encircling the monument, and I do not know how in the world these graves will remain untouched if the Department of the Army proceeds with its proposal to remove the monument.

Former Virginia Democrat Senator Jim Webb, a decorated Marine Corps officer who served multiple combat tours in Vietnam and later became the Secretary of the Navy, recently published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal concerning the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington Cemetery.

Senator Webb describes his own journey of reconciliation following his combat tours in Vietnam. He explains how he hosted a delegation of Vietnamese officials in Washington to encourage them to be peaceful toward former South Vietnamese veterans, who were labeled as traitors after the war and had been treated as such.

Senator Webb described how to make his point to the delegation. He brought them to the Reconciliation Monument in Arlington and pointed across the Potomac toward the Lincoln Memorial to show that old wounds can be healed. Senator Webb concludes with this: If the monument is taken apart and removed, ``it would send a different message, one of a deteriorating society willing to erase the generosity of its past, in favor of bitterness and misunderstanding.''

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a stand

against such a divisive and history-erasing action and support my amendment to defund the effort to remove the Reconciliation Monument from the Arlington National Cemetery.

My amendment prevents this tyrannical encroachment by legislative authority, ignorance of congressional intent, and disregard of national unity.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, it would be an absolute disgrace if this Reconciliation Monument to our Nation's national unity is removed from Arlington National Cemetery and the graves that encircle it are desecrated.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my amendment prevents any funds in this year's Defense appropriations bill from being spent on section 370 of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense 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 inessential renaming of military bases and facilities as this issue is not a matter of national security nor an improvement of our military's combat readiness.

The Department of Defense's focus should remain on bolstering our defense capabilities and ensuring that we maintain the most lethal fighting force in the world. Instead, the Department of Defense is continuing to pursue plans to rename military bases, two of which, Fort Benning and Fort Gordon, are in my home State of Georgia.

The Department of Defense's renaming efforts are 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 their establishments or attractions after the local Army base. If the name of the base is changed, then local entrepreneurs will be forced to rename and rebrand businesses, replacing merchandise and creating completely new marketing strategies, which is not cheap. In fact, in many cases, you may see that 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 even 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, and I adamantly believe that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars should not be wasted 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 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.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, 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.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment regarding the Department of Defense workforce, which is particularly important as we face a shutdown.

However, first, I need to address two of the biggest workforce challenges facing the military, both wholly manufactured by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

First and foremost, to 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 is 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 a 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 officers are being required to perform double duty in acting roles. Military families are having their lives put 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 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 Republicans from further compounding their attacks on the Department's workforce. The amendment would prevent any cuts to the Department of Defense civilian workforce that undermine our military and national security.

Please follow along closely.

Defense appropriations bills routinely include language that says: None of the funds appropriated by this act may be used to reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels absent the appropriate analysis of the impacts of those reductions.

This language has received broad bipartisan support. It was included in the 2023 omnibus. It is in the current FY24 Department of Defense Appropriations bill in the Senate, and it was adopted as part of other past 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 Total Force Management, which states, ``The Secretary may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels unless the Secretary conducts an appropriate analysis of the impacts of such reductions on workload, military force structure, lethality, readiness, operational effectiveness, stress on the military force, and fully burdened costs.''

My amendment would restore that important language and legacy by prohibiting dangerous civilian workforce cuts that do not prioritize those enumerated priorities. It is helpful to understand the broader context to appreciate why this is essential.

The underlying bill cuts the civilian workforce 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 workforce. That is 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 workforce must first prioritize the lethality, readiness, and operational effectiveness of the military.

My amendment would restore that consideration and that language.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees in support of my amendment.

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2023.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the American

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which

represents over 750,000 federal and District of Columbia

employees, including 250,000 Defense Department civilian

employees, I write to provide AFGE's views on several

amendments that were made in order by the House Rules

Committee with respect to H.R. 4365, the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, 2024, that the House is expected

to consider today.

Specifically, AFGE strongly urges you to oppose amendment

168 that will be offered by

Rep. Hageman (R-AZ), amendment 167 that will be offered by

Rep. Greene (R-GA), amendments 155 and 156 that will be

offered by Rep. Boebert (R-CO), amendment 161: that will be

offered by Rep. Fallon (R-TX), amendment 178 that will be

offered by Rep. Roy (R-TX), amendment 172 that will be

offered by Rep. Norman (R-SC), and amendments 176 and 184

that will be offered by Rep. Rosendale (R-MT) during floor

consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense

Appropriations Act, 2024.

Hageman amendment 168 would arbitrarily and without

justification prohibit regular telework and remote work for

Defense Department civilian employees and contractors.

Longstanding policy has, with considerable success, directed

DoD agency managers and personnel to collaboratively develop

and implement telework policies that address the specific

needs of agencies and further their missions. Importantly,

the workplace flexibility that telework enables has improved

DoD's capacity to maintain continuous operations in the event

of a natural or national security crisis. It has also helped

DoD agencies recruit and retain talent, be more productive,

and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. Not

insignificantly, remote work and telework are particularly

important for military spouses who are frequently deployed to

remote places with few job opportunities but can otherwise

contribute to the federal civilian workforce.

Greene amendment 167, Boebert amendments 155 and 156,

Fallon amendment 161, and Roy amendment 178 would invoke the

so-called Holman Rule to either reduce to $1.00 the annual

salaries of various DoD officials. These cynical amendments,

if enacted, would do great damage to the Department's ability

to maintain readiness and recruit and retain personnel who

reflect the diversity of America.

Rosendale amendments 176 and 184 would strip the Defense

Department of its authority to set policy as it pertains to

the prevention of COVID-19. These amendments are singularly

irresponsible and reckless. Enactment would risk the health

of tens of thousands of DoD military personnel and civilian

employees in the event of a future COVID-19 outbreak--all to

make a cynical political point. Senior Defense Department

officers and medical personnel are in a much better position

than Congress to determine appropriate measures to protect

the health of military personnel and civilian employees.

Norman amendment 172 would, if enacted, reverse important

strides the Defense Department--one of the least diverse

agencies in the federal government--has made in recent years

to recruit and retain the best and the brightest personnel

from all corners of America.

AFGE recommends that you support amendment 159 that will be

offered by Rep. Connolly (D-VA). This amendment would restore

important language included in previous Defense

Appropriations Acts prohibiting the Defense Department from

reducing its civilian workforce absent the appropriate

analysis of the effects of these reductions on workload,

military force structure, lethality, readiness, operational

effectiveness, stress on the military force, and fully

burdened costs. By omitting the provision that Rep.

Connolly's amendment proposes to restore, H.R. 4365, if

enacted, could lead to reckless cuts in the civilian

workforce that the armed services depend on to protect and

defend our nation.

Please vote against these amendments should recorded votes

be requested. For questions or more information please

contact Julie Tippens or Keith Abouchar.

Sincerely,

Julie N. Tippens,

Director, Legislative Department.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.