Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2670) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 582 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 582.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 582, providing for consideration of H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA as we commonly know it, for fiscal year 2024, under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. It provides the Committee on Armed Services with en bloc authority so that the House can expeditiously consider hundreds of Member priorities.

I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is one of the most critical pieces of legislation the House considers each year. Congress has a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, and this is an obligation I know the House takes very seriously. Each year, the NDAA enables Congress to set appropriate defense policies, to provide guidance and direction to the armed forces, and above all, to set authorization levels for defense funding. Collectively, these efforts provide our warfighters with the training, equipment, and strategy necessary to meet any challenge around the globe.

Congress has enacted the NDAA every year for the last 62 years. While we have a long road ahead of us, I am confident that we will do so again this year, and I am gratified that the House is moving forward with consideration of this measure on the floor.

Last month, the House Armed Services Committee reported out H.R. 2670 with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 58-1. From a review of the bill, it is easy to see why.

H.R. 2670 authorizes $886 billion for defense programs, an increase of $28 billion. This funding level will ensure our men and women in uniform are equipped for all threats and are prepared and ready to defend freedom all around the globe.

In proposing this funding level, the Armed Services Committee stayed within the parameters of the funding levels set in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Additionally, they identified nearly $40 billion that was repurposed to respond to our current national security needs. This ensures that the tax dollars of hardworking Americans are being used in the most efficient and appropriate way possible.

H.R. 2670 includes a 5.2 percent pay increase for our servicemembers, the largest pay increase in over 20 years. It includes critical policies that will counter aggression from the Chinese Communist Party, advance investments in tools to counter emerging threats, and bolster the reliability of our supply chains. What is more, it includes critical oversight measures designed to ensure that defense dollars are wisely spent.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't stop there. H.R. 2670 also ensures that the Biden administration cannot continue to put policies ahead of national security. It rejects the Biden administration's efforts to indoctrinate our troops with progressive ideology like critical race theory training, and instead, ensures that the Pentagon's focus is where it should be, on military readiness and preparedness so that our warfighters can defeat aggression and defend freedom anywhere in the world.

In drafting H.R. 2670, the Armed Services Committee followed a robust bipartisan process. They considered 760 amendments during the markup and adopted 731 of them.

In preparing today's rule, the Rules Committee sought to continue this robust, collaborative process. We reviewed over 1,500 amendments, a record number. In keeping with our longstanding tradition at the Rules Committee, we welcomed any Member who wished to come testify about their amendments. Dozens of Members from both parties took part and educated the committee on their proposals for this bill, and, indeed, we would have welcomed dozens more.

In all, today's rule makes in order 290 amendments, reflecting substantive ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle and ensuring that Members will have an opportunity to present their priorities to the House. I look forward to debating these ideas on the floor and to full and fair consideration of these proposals before the entire House.

Mr. Speaker, all in all, H.R. 2670 is a strong bill, and the rule we are considering today is an appropriate one for consideration of such an important measure. I urge the Members to support both the rule and H.R. 2670, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend. As always, he is a thoughtful and reflective speaker, even when we disagree on certain things.

Mr. Speaker, the process in front of us is undoubtedly going to go longer than we originally anticipated. I don't think that is a bad thing. I actually think that is a good thing. I suspect we will, in the end, have more votes on a whole variety of issues than we might have originally had.

Again, I don't think that is a bad thing. That is broadly allowing the House, within the fine parameters, to work its will as we work toward a solution. I think we will ultimately get there.

Mr. Speaker, I would also remind my friend that however a bill changes here, it is going to change again. The NDAA by its very nature is, at the end of the day on final passage, a bipartisan bill. I would just suggest to people to not get too upset or get too worried.

You are going to see the House very vigorously debating a whole variety of issues. That is good for the institution. I think at the end of the day, the House will work its will and we will pass an NDAA bill out of here. At some point we will sit down and conference it with the Senate, and it will come back, and we will have another pretty vigorous debate.

What we are seeing is a pretty robust democracy working its will and a pretty robust House of Representatives working its will.

Mr. Speaker, today will be a bipartisan discussion. Most of the amendments, indeed, have been agreed to by both sides, but they need to be fully aired and debated. We think that is a good thing. I suspect it will be somewhat of a more contentious debate later on in the process, but the process will work out.

At the end of the day, I am confident we will pass an NDAA bill. At the end of the day, I am confident that once the bill is worked through the Senate and signed by the President, it will, as most NDAA bills are, be a bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will state for the record that I certainly have no objection to defending Social Security and Medicare. As a matter of fact, for, I think, six Congresses in a row, I have introduced legislation, which was originally drawn up with my good friend John Delaney, a former Democratic Member, on doing just that, on trying to save Social Security.

What we proposed is what we did back in 1983 that actually worked, that extended the life of Social Security for almost half a century, which would be to actually do a commission and make a set of reasonable reforms. I would put revenue on the table. Personally, I think that has to be part of it. It certainly was then.

Again, my friends haven't been very serious about reforming Social Security, in my view. To be fair, I don't think anybody has been. We have been trying to get people to look at this problem for a long time.

I invite my friend from New York or any of my Democratic colleagues to look at what we have proposed--again, originally with a Democratic cosponsor. It is the only way we are going to get there. It is going to have to be a bipartisan sort of deal.

That is what Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker did back in that timeframe. We should do the same thing.

To say we are not interested in Medicare and Social Security is simply wrong. Again, I am the last guy probably to say that to because I have consistently put out a proposal to try and move forward in that regard.

I will say this. In 1983, when they saved it, we were within 2 months of it going broke--not going broke but having to make the cuts that you make to adjust your outflow to the revenue coming in. We have 10 years. We ought to take care of that.

Unfortunately, nobody or not enough people seem to be interested. That includes the President of the United States, who, back in 1983, actually voted for that commission to be created and then voted to accept its recommendations. The current White House says it doesn't want to do any commissions and politicizes the issue.

I see this on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, where people tell us they want to protect Social Security. If you want to protect it, Mr. Speaker, then you have to legislate on it because it is steadily becoming less solvent over the years.

Also, to my friend from New York's remark about the focus on military spending, I just would point out to the House that the total budget in the NDAA that is proposed this year is actually the one the President recommended. Personally, I think it is too low. I would have gone higher. I will be the first to tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

The number that the committee chose is the President's number. So, for those of my friends who are critical of how much is being spent, I would suggest you direct your concerns to the White House because the Appropriations Committee took the President's recommended number.

Again, if my colleagues think we are misfocused, my friend's first argument is with the President of the United States and not with your colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his thoughtful remarks and helpful suggestions, and I will point out a couple of things quickly in response.

The House Armed Services Committee has actually done a good job on doing what my friend wants to do. They have repurposed over $40 billion in the bill and redirected it more efficiently.

This has been a bipartisan, collaborative process between Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, who, frankly, have worked quite well together whether one was in the majority or the minority.

I think, as an alum of this distinguished committee that I once served on, it is actually doing a pretty good job of trying to find the savings that I know my friend sincerely wants to find and redirect.

I wouldn't say I disagree, but I would put some things in perspective when we talk about spending. I have been around this stuff for a long time. My dad was a career military guy at the height of the Cold War. At the height of the Cold War, the United States spent 50 percent of its entire budget on defense and spent almost 9 percent of its gross national product because it thought that was what the threat was.

Then, as the Cold War waned, we came down a little bit. We had the great Reagan defense buildup. At that point, defense was about one- third of the total Federal budget, not half. It had already come down, and it was about 6 percent of the gross national product. Currently, it is less than 4 percent, around 3.5, 3.7 percent. I would say that is probably too low. It is only 15 percent of the entire budget.

What has driven spending around here--and we all know it--is really not the discretionary budget. It is the entitlement budget. It is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is about 60 percent of all Federal spending. Throw in interest on the debt and the Federal retirement system, and we are around 70, 71, 72 percent.

So, I am all for saving money, and there is certainly money to be saved in defense. If Congress wants to get serious about this, then let's talk about where the money is and sit down in a bipartisan way, maybe in the framework that our former colleague Mr. Delaney and I offered, and get serious about it. This is not where we spend most of the country's money, and frankly, this is an area where we are underspending.

Again, for my friends who are concerned--and efficiency suggestions are always welcomed--the number we have is the President's number. If we are overspending here, then it is probably good for my friends to have a conversation with the President of the United States because, honestly, our colleagues in the majority would prefer, for the most part, to be at a higher number. I know that is true for Chairman Rogers, and I suspect it is true for the majority of the committee's Republican members.

Again, concerns about spending are always appropriate. There is waste in

every part of government, including defense, but I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, broadly speaking, the country certainly is not overspending on defense in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would thank my friend, as always, for a thoughtful and robust debate. We covered a lot of ground. A lot of it didn't have a lot to do with defense. We talked about Social Security for a while, and I am delighted to see my friends are worried about the state of the Republican majority. I think it will do fine.

While the process as always in Congress can look from the outside as chaotic or sometimes contradictory, the rally is we tend to work towards things, and we have gotten this bill done for 62 years in a row for a reason. It didn't matter who was the majority and who was the minority or what the administration was. I suspect the same thing is going to happen again this time.

Along the course of that, we will have a robust debate. Today, we will mostly be talking about things we agree on, as we know, and that is a good thing.

There will be things that we disagree on, and that is fine, too. I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that winning here isn't necessarily winning. It just gets you to the next stage of the contest.

The Senate will be moving on its version of the NDAA. We will sit down in conference, and then we will see what the real final product is. Some of the things that we are watching today, to me, again, are just the normal process and policy working out.

Mr. Speaker, I would also in closing, urge my colleagues to support this resolution. H.R. 2670, the NDAA for fiscal year 2024 is a strong, strong bill. It fulfills Congress' constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense while also ensuring that we are carefully and wisely spending the American people's hard-earned tax dollars.

It will set appropriate policies for the Armed Services to ensure our warfighters have the equipment, the training, and the resources they need to confront aggression anywhere around the world at any time.

It requires the Pentagon to maintain a laser focus on readiness, and it ensures appropriate oversight of our investments both at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, this is unfortunately a dangerous time in the world. American adversaries are on the march, threatening global stability and territorial integrity of our friends and our allies.

These threats range from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to communist China's continued pressure on Taiwan and our Pacific allies to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and to North Korea's

continued testing of intercontinental missiles.

The United States does not seek armed conflict, but we will be prepared to meet it should it seek us out.

I would remind this House of the words of Ronald Reagan. `` . . . peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations.''

In taking up H.R. 2670, we are continuing that tradition. We are continuing to build our Armed Forces to meet and confront any foe at any time anywhere in the world, and it is my hope that in doing so, we will be building a military that is strong enough to deter aggression.

We will, as people have committed throughout our history, achieve peace through strength.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as amended.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I agree with Chairman Rogers. This is a very strong bipartisan bill and it reflects the process that we go through every year in passing the National Defense Authorization Act. We had a great markup in committee. It was a bipartisan process. We considered at least a thousand different amendments and ideas that were brought to us by members from across the committee. We had very good debates in those amendments, and we came out with what I think is an excellent bipartisan product.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Rogers in his first year as chairman. He has done an outstanding job of being inclusive of all of us and producing a great bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff. The members sort of throw the ideas out there and the staff are the ones that have to sort through them and turn them into amendments and negotiate to try to get it done. We are blessed with an outstanding staff on the Armed Services Committee. I very much appreciate their support.

Mr. Chairman, I will start by emphasizing one of the last points that Chairman Rogers made on accountability and efficiency within the military.

The Department of Defense is a very large bureaucracy. We will never completely eliminate any wasteful decision, but we are absolutely focused on doing the best we can, and this bill reflects that to try to make sure that we are getting our money's worth for the systems and programs that we are funding. I think the chairman has done a great job of leading on that.

Mr. Chairman, we are working toward getting a full audit of the Pentagon. We are auditing piece by piece and empowering the Inspector General to make sure that we do a better job of spending the taxpayers' dollars.

Overall, the NDAA weaves three basic things into it. Number one, and most importantly, is support for the men and women who serve in our military and their families. Without this bill, crucial programs will be lost that provide that support. We offer bonuses and other incentive pay. We increased the basic housing allowance. There are all kinds of issues that go toward the basic necessities that men and women in the military and their families need to support them that doesn't happen without this legislation.

We have mentioned, and I mention again, the importance of recruitment and retention. That is one of the biggest issues. Are we supporting the servicemembers and their families?

This bill is the opportunity that we, as Members of Congress, have to make sure that we are doing that as a body.

The second big issue is modernizing the military. The chairman mentioned this, as well. On the modern battlefield, technology and new innovations are crucial. It is changing constantly and needs to be updated. The Pentagon historically has not been great at fielding new technologies quickly. We put a variety of different provisions in there to help incentivize that and move them toward doing that.

The modern battlefield is about information systems, missiles, missile defense, drone, and counter drone. We need to have the best in all of that. We need to innovate, and this bill helps get us there.

Lastly, the bill recognizes the threat environment that we face. They recognize the threat from China, the threat from Russia, and others to make sure that we have adequate deterrence.

We continue the Indo-Pacific Defense Initiative to help offer that deterrence to China, and, crucially, we continue to support Ukraine. I want to emphasize that last point. You cannot be legitimately concerned about the threat that China poses and not be willing to support Ukraine.

If Putin and Russia are able to do what they want to do in Ukraine, that gives a green light to President Xi and China to do the same thing elsewhere. Russia must be defeated in Ukraine. A sovereign, democratic Ukraine must survive for our country's vision of what national security should be for the globe. You can't do one without the other, and I hope we will do both.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very strong bill. I support the bill as it is currently before us. The amendments that are in front of us are going to be debated one way or the other, and I will still support the bill after that.

As we all know, that is not the end of the story here. There is a second rule

allegedly coming. I sincerely hope that the majority prioritizes getting this bill done over the certain views of a small number of extreme Members. We have a good bill. Let's pass it. Let's not mess it up.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who is the ranking member of the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, amen to Mr. Gallagher's comments. I appreciate that impassioned speech.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim), who is the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan), the vice ranking member of the full committee.

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard during the course of this debate exactly why this is such an important bill, why it is such a good bill, and the effort that went into the process.

You have heard a bipartisan group of people, and people wide-ranging on the political spectrum, from left to right, describe the process that we go through to produce this product and why it is so important that we pass it.

We face a very complex threat environment. Now I happen to be of the

opinion that it is not just military strength that is going to help us negotiate that threat environment. For one thing, I very much applaud the Biden administration opening up high-level discussions with China. We need diplomacy. We need development. We need partners and allies throughout the globe.

We also absolutely need a credible deterrent to deal with China and Russia, and also, by the way, Iran and North Korea, as well as various other transnational threats.

We are doing this I think in a responsible way, and we have put together a good bill that will continue to support that process going forward.

Again, I would emphasize what Representative Gallagher very articulately said. This is how this process is supposed to work. This is why we are effective Members of Congress. It is an example of how this body should function, and we need more examples of that. We need to pass this bill to continue that process.

It is regular order, working it through the committee, giving everybody a voice, having debates, winning some, losing some. I don't think there has ever been an NDAA that was everything that any one person wanted.

Republicans liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others. Democrats liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others.

That is what we have put together here.

The issue that is holding us up at the moment is around the issue of basically recruitment and diversity. What I hope folks understand is that what the Pentagon is trying to do is they are trying to effectively recruit from across the country.

What a minority of the majority party wants to do is to torpedo this entire bill to push a radical antidiversity agenda. We need to recruit everybody, and we haven't always had the best record on this.

The reason there is a diversity equity inclusion portion in the military is they recognize it is necessary to be able to effectively recruit within certain groups of people who have been historically discriminated against and marginalized.

Just to give you one of the most blatant examples:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell basically barred gay people from serving within the military, and 13 years ago, we repealed that to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Every single Republican voted against that bill because of that issue, because we were allowing gay people to serve in the military.

Well, as we look at our needs right now in recruitment and retention, can anyone credibly say that we would be better off if we barred gay people from serving in the military?

That didn't happen by accident. We actually affirmatively went out and recruited. Same for trans people; we had multiple efforts to ban them from serving in the military. That doesn't help us. It, in fact, undermines us.

We have had a long history of it being very difficult for women to integrate in the military. I hate to keep citing the story, but hearing the one woman who serves in our community talk about her experience, that it was okay because she just knew that she had to work twice as hard as the men in order to succeed illustrates the problem.

We have by and large done a decent job of recruiting people of color, particularly Black people. When you look at the leadership in our military, it is very, very White. So if you are a person of color, if you are a woman, if you are gay, if you are trans, and you are thinking about joining the military, can anyone credibly say that it isn't a legitimate question to ask: Well, okay, but am I going to get a fair shot? Am I going to be rewarded for my efforts? Am I going to be promoted when I do a good job? Am I going to face discrimination and bigotry?

For the Department of Defense to spend at least a little bit of time going out in those communities and saying, we hear you and we are going to give you a fair shot, we are not going to discriminate against you, we are going to have conversations about this; certain Members of the other side lose their damn minds at the concept of that conversation even happening.

They want to pretend like that sort of bigotry doesn't exist. It is like we are making it up, and why are we worrying about it. Well, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a problem. I would grant them that.

Again, the history is right there. It needs to be addressed if we are going to recruit and retain.

We are an increasingly diverse country. Do we really want to take huge chunks of that country and say, we are not going to use your talents? We are going to put those resources on the side, and we are not going to bring them forward.

Now, as I said in the Rules Committee, bad DEI programs are bad DEI programs, and I am sure it happens. I haven't seen a program that doesn't have some examples of working well and some examples of not working well.

If we want to regulate that, if we want to say: Look, you are doing this. We don't think you are doing that right; let's talk about it, that could be a conversation we have. But the conversation that we engaged in, and as Mr. Gaetz pointed out, there are provisions in this bill that, frankly, I don't like, that restricts some of this already. I am not fond of those.

That isn't enough for the radical rightwing MAGA Republicans. They want to kill this bill because it doesn't discriminate enough against people in this country, and that is just absurd.

This is a good, strong bill. It should go forward on its own merits regardless of where you come down on that debate. To say that we need to kill this good, strong bill because it needs to be more discriminatory against people is something that I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this body would reject.

Mr. Chair, let me just close by saying that we have five en bloc amendments here; a whole lot of good things in there. Once we get through those five en bloc amendments, we will have a very strong bill, which will be bipartisan amended.

If we were to go right from the end of that debate, put that bill up for final passage, it would get at least 350 votes--an overwhelmingly bipartisan, strongly supported bill that the majority at the moment is refusing to allow us to have a vote on as we try to negotiate that extreme agenda that I just discussed.

Okay, if you want to debate with them, you don't want to talk, that is fine. At the end of that process, I would hope that we would have the courage to say, yeah, we hear you, you don't like it, vote ``no.''

That is a democracy, okay?

Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no,'' send out your press releases, do your whole Facebook thing. You will raise a lot of money. We will pass a bill. We will take care of the country. You will get on TV a lot. You will raise a lot of money. Everybody is happy.

I don't see why we can't get to that conclusion. That is the real worrisome thing here. They don't just support their agenda. The one agenda they don't support is democracy. It is the idea that people ought to have a vote, and if you lose, you lose.

No, if they lose, they are going to tear this place down, and they are going to take everybody they can with them.

Gosh, I hope we don't let them do that. I hope we find a way to pass this bill and work our way through the process and, for the 63rd consecutive year, pass a National Defense Authorization Act that supports the men and women of our military and shows that democracy works just fine and we ought to continue to support it.

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

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

I don't have any speakers. I am very pleased to dispose of this quickly, if you would like. I would just say I think it is an outstanding amendment, and we ought to vote for it.

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

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

I understand we have one speaker on the way, but they can catch the next one.

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

Mr. Chair, I would inquire if the gentleman has more speakers. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I once again urge support for this en bloc amendment and thank the Rules Committee for putting it together.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers either so, once again, I will urge support for the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no speakers. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I once again urge adoption of en bloc package No. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I respect the gentleman, and I appreciate his remarks, his commitment to civility and decency and fairness. I know that he wants this House to run better and reflect the will of the Members. Quite frankly, I just don't believe what is happening in this Chamber lives up to the standard that he has set.

Last night, the Rules Committee met at 11 p.m. to advance a rule, not for the whole National Defense Authorization Act, which we were supposed to start debating today, but for part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

I get it. I have been in the majority before. I understand it is not always easy. What is happening today on the floor--not knowing when we are coming back to finish the second rule for this bill, or what offensive amendments will be included--is not just weird, it is nuts.

A small group of radical, hard-right Members, the MAGA circus I call them, is threatening to take down the NDAA rule unless they get their way. The ``unless they get their way'' part is really becoming a theme in this Congress.

I don't envy the gentleman from Oklahoma because what he is dealing with is truly bizarre. The MAGA circus wants to load up what could and should be a bipartisan bill--a bipartisan bill that passes every single year. They want to load it up with every single divisive social issue under the sun via the amendment process. Anti-abortion? Check. Anti- LGBTQ rights? Check. Anti-gun safety? Check.

It is not just that they are demanding it, it is that Republican leadership is probably caving. It is embarrassing, but, quite frankly, it is not surprising. This is just the latest example of how Kevin McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme Members of his own caucus while hanging everyone else out to dry and cutting mainstream Members out of the process. Kevin McCarthy may be the ringmaster, Mr. Speaker, but the clowns have taken over the circus.

This is a group of Members that are so far to the right that they have now begun purging Members from their own ranks for not being ideologically pure enough. It is honestly kind of scary. That is who is trying to write this year's defense bill.

The party of single-issue bills wants to turn the NDAA into an anti- abortion, anti-LGBTQ bill that weighs in on every wedge issue and culture war from guns to border and beyond.

Give me a break. If they want to do a single-issue bill, get this stuff out of here and pass a bipartisan NDAA bill.

By the way, I would say that I find some of the amendments that have been introduced to this NDAA incredibly offensive. We have Members saying they want to get woke out of the military, but they can't even define ``woke.''

Was desegregating the military woke?

Was allowing women in combat roles woke?

Was repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell woke?

That is what I want to ask some of my colleagues. I am pretty sure what their answer would be.

Mr. Speaker, why all the backroom dealing and negotiating with MAGA clowns?

By the way, I say that as somebody who has voted against the NDAA in the minority and in the majority because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of sending blank checks to the Pentagon while we nickel and dime programs that help everyday people.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Republicans luck in trying to solve this internal power struggle. I have to say, I don't have a whole lot of faith that this is going to work out in a way that will be good for this country.

I don't think it will work out in a way that will be good for most people in this country.

This is an example. I think when people are watching these proceedings and are seeing the kind of extortion that the MAGA Republicans are exacting from the current leadership, this is what I think people look at and say: This is what is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I say this with no disrespect to the chairman, who I think is an example of what is right in this place. I will be voting ``no'' on this rule. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. I hope and pray that my Republican friends can get their act together so we can actually start doing the people's business.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I would just say for the record that we are not objecting to more amendments being made in order.

I will remind my colleagues that when I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we had made 650 amendments in order for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is far higher than the 290. We hope that you have at least 650, and maybe you can surpass us. That would be wonderful.

We don't object to a process that allows for more amendments to be considered or more amendments to be made in order. What we object to is the extorting of your leadership by a small group of extremists in this House who are trying to force their rightwing and hard-line views on Congress and the people of this country.

We are concerned, quite frankly, that some of these ideas that the MAGA circus is proposing couldn't even pass if it were brought up as a freestanding amendment. We are worried about a self-executing rule as part of the next

rule that will make them part of the base bill. That is what we are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, we want more amendments in order. We think that is a good thing. What we are worried about is what this small group of individuals that seems to be engaged in extortion on every single major bill that comes to this floor, what they will end up winning in this process. What they will win is not reflective of what I think the majority of this Chamber believes. That is deeply concerning to us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's sacred responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman), to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2670.

Mr. Speaker, the administration supports this bill as it is written, but the statement also notes several concerns that the administration has with the bill, which they hope Congress will work with them to address.

House Democrats are going to do what we can to fight against any attempts to push the bill to the extreme MAGA fringes.

As I was saying earlier, we have no objection to making more amendments in order. Again, when I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we made a lot of amendments in order to the defense authorization bill.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, about some of the people who are not thinking in reality here.

Last night, we had a Republican Member come up and testify about an amendment to withdraw us totally from NATO, a critical alliance between Europe and North America created after World War II that provides massive social, economic, and political benefits to its members in the face of an aggressive adversary.

My Republican friends have their heads in the sand if this is the kind of thing that they think will make our country more safe, and this is exactly the kind of amendment that the fringe elements of the MAGA circus are supporting.

By the way, the author of this amendment isn't extreme enough for the Freedom Caucus. They want her out of the Freedom Caucus because she is not pure enough or not extreme enough.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Foreign Policy titled: ``Why Americans Still Need NATO.''

Mr. Speaker, we are really worried about where this is headed. The amendments that are contained in this first rule--most of them, I think, if not all of them--will probably pass with bipartisan support. Many of them are not controversial at all. It is what is coming next that has us concerned.

What will the MAGA wing of the Republican Party extort from this leadership? What are the horrific policy items that they are going to demand to be put into this bill in order to get it through the House?

Those are the things we are worried about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, ``A Pentagon study released earlier this year found major defense contractors flush with, `cash beyond their needs for operations or investment.' They have tens of billions of excess cash from Pentagon business to hand out to shareholders.''

I think it is outrageous that Republicans will happily line the pockets of these ultra wealthy contractors but pinch pennies when it comes to the American people.

As I said earlier, we are talking about nearly a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget here. At the same time, appropriators led by Republicans are cutting programs like WIC and Meals on Wheels.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from CBS News titled, ``How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is more ridiculous Republican infighting and wasting more time. That is what this is. They are bickering on everything, from spending levels to whose bill gets on the floor when. It distracts from the other very real work that Congress has the opportunity to do here.

We should also be working to protect our constituents from gun violence. There were more than 17 mass shootings this past Fourth of July weekend that killed dozens of Americans, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans.

We should also pass bills to keep pollutants from clogging up our air and toxins from ruining our water, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans.

We should also do more to stop the opioid crisis and provide support for those struggling with their mental health, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans.

We should also make sure that every American has access to quality healthcare, the chance to receive a good education, or even the basic rights to housing and food, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans.

There is so, so much we should be doing, including passing this bipartisan defense budget, but Republican leadership is busy trying to cater to every whim of the MAGA circus.

I will say it again, Kevin McCarthy may be the ringleader, but the clowns have taken over. It is no way to govern, and it continues to set a deeply dangerous precedent for how this body conducts business moving forward, including with the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain why we are here right now, and why we are in this situation.

We have passed a defense bill by huge margins every year for the past 63 years. Yet here we are with this stalling of moving the full bill forward because a small group of people who call themselves the Freedom Caucus have basically said that they will block passage of this bill if the Republican leadership doesn't cave to every one of their demands.

They call themselves the Freedom Caucus. That seems like a strange name. I mean, are they for the freedom for people to read whatever books they want in the library? No.

Are they for the freedom of women to be able to control their own bodies? No.

Are they for the freedom for people to love who they want in this country? No.

Are they for the freedom to protect people from gun violence in this country as we see the number of incidents involving guns in this country rise at this alarming rate? No.

I think the only thing they are pro-freedom about is the freedom to harass the Republican leadership, the freedom to extort the leadership to cave to their ideas that, by the way, are deeply unpopular not only in this Chamber, that is sadly controlled by the Republicans, but views and ideas that are deeply unpopular throughout this country.

Mr. Speaker, and I get it. They threaten the Speaker by saying that we will move to vacate the Chair. We will move to oust you as Speaker if you don't do everything we say. When they say jump, they want the Speaker to respond by saying, how high. This is a bad way to run this Congress. This is not what the American people expect from the House of Representatives. They certainly don't want ideas that are so extreme, so to the fringe, being shoved down their throats.

At some point, the Speaker has to stand up to these people. At some point, he has to say no. At some point, he has to make it clear that what they are asking is beyond the pale. It is not only not good policy, but it is bad for this institution, and it is bad for this country. That is why we are here.

We don't know when the Rules Committee will meet again. We don't know whether we are going to meet again this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow. We had one member of the Freedom Caucus say: Well, we can meet in August-- or after August.

So this notion of everything being held hostage because of a small group of rightwing extremists just has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to approach appropriations season. I don't know how the hell you are going to get appropriation bills through here with some of the stuff that is being forced onto those bills and some of the cuts that are being forced.

As I said earlier, cuts in programs like WIC, Women, Infants and Children's program; Meals on Wheels. I mean, really? Those are the priorities of this Republican majority? This has to stop. This has to stop.

So stay tuned, everybody, for how this all plays out. We don't know whether we are going to finish this bill this week or next week or sometime into the future, but this is not the way Congress should be run.

Certainly, I would urge the Speaker to stand up to this small group of fringe lawmakers who are trying to extort unreasonable demands from him that are not in the interest of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question because I believe it is important that we make it clear we don't want cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Again, I hope and pray that my friends can get their act together in the very near future so we can actually move forward with a debate and a final determination on where people stand on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2670.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2670, the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

H.R. 2670 represents a truly bipartisan bill. I thank Ranking Member Smith for his tremendous help in moving this bill through committee. Congress has the constitutional duty to provide for our common defense. Every year, we fulfill this duty by passing the National Defense Authorization Act.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA provides our warfighters the resources and authorities they need to provide for the defense of our Nation and the security of our allies around the world.

That is critical because the threats we face today are more complex and serious than they have been at any point in the last 30 years. Topping that list is an increasingly aggressive China.

Ranking Member Smith and I recently led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. What was clear from our meetings was that the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party is real and represents the most pressing national security challenge we have faced in decades.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA was built with that underlying goal of deterring the Chinese Communist Party in mind.

It provides new authorities and speeds the fielding of innovative new technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonics that will give us the advantage in a conflict with China. It strengthens our security partnerships with Taiwan and other Pacific allies.

It fully funds and expedites the modernization of the nuclear deterrent and builds a stronger and more capable missile defense. It protects the U.S. military bases, critical infrastructure, and academic research from Chinese encroachment and espionage.

It builds the logistics networks that the Pacific military needs to carry out the operations against China. It includes new authorities to retool and revitalize the industrial base to ensure they can deliver the systems we need to prevail in any conflict.

Reorienting our defense to deter the threat from China will be an expensive endeavor. We knowledge there are limits on what we can afford to spend, that is why this NDAA is hyperfocused on rooting out waste in the DOD. If weapons systems are not responsive to the threats we face, we cut them.

In fact, the NDAA includes nearly $40 billion in savings from cutting systems that can't survive a conflict with China and by reining in programs that have grown out of control.

We also require the DOD Inspector General to review major defense programs for waste, and we create a new special inspector general to oversee all

Ukraine aid. In the face of growing threats from China, it is critical we restore the military's focus on lethality.

The fiscal year 2024 NDAA does so by bringing to an end divisive policies implemented by this administration that have hurt recruiting, unit cohesion, and military readiness.

While I believe this will go a long way toward resolving the recruiting crisis we face, we also need to improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. The NDAA does that by providing for the largest pay raise in 30 years and authorizes bonuses for junior enlisted personnel.

It increases allowances for housing and basic needs to counteract the growing costs for food and housing. It authorizes $200 million more than the President requested to build new barracks and family housing.

The bill expands access and significantly reduces the cost of childcare for military families. It makes it easier for military spouses to find jobs when servicemembers transfer stations.

Finally, it improves the quality of military healthcare, especially mental health services for our servicemembers and their families.

This bill passed out of committee 58-1. That is the definition of a bipartisan bill. It will enhance congressional oversight of DOD and it will improve the quality of life of our servicemembers. It will help build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter the Chinese Communist Party and our other adversaries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2023.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2024. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Agriculture.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Agriculture does

not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject

matters contained in the bill that fall within its Rule X

jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name

members of this committee to any conference committee that is

named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

2670 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the vice chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), who is the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), who is the chairman of the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), the chairman of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), my friend and chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), my good friend, and the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), my friend and colleague, and a freshman member of the committee who is doing an outstanding job.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the ranking member did a great job of outlining how important this bill is and emphasizing the fact that we don't all agree with what is in this bill. It is a compromise process.

We are in an institution where we have divided government. Neither side is going to get everything they like.

I represent a rural, very conservative district. If all I had to worry about was my perspective, this bill would look a lot different, but I am not the only person that gets a say-so.

We have a history, and a very proud history in this body of finding a way,

for 62 consecutive years, to come together, no matter which party is in control of the White House, no matter which party is in control of the House or Senate, to find a way to put our men and women in uniform ahead of everything else and get a national defense authorization bill passed.

Our committee demonstrated, once again this year, with a 58-1 vote, that that priority is still the priority.

I am very proud of this bill. It is not everything I like. I hope that, in fact, once we finish this amendment process, it looks a lot like it does right now because the ranking member is correct. If this bill were put on the floor for a vote today, it would get much more than 350 votes in my opinion, so I am proud of it.

I do want to take a minute to thank our staff. I can't overstate how much work has gone into this process. As the ranking member mentioned, we had over 1,200, 12 or 1,300 amendments filed in committee. We had, I believe, over 1,400 filed here for the floor.

The staff has done an incredible job over recent months to get us to where we are. They continue to work in a great bipartisan fashion to advance this product.

The Rules Committee has been very helpful to work with, and I appreciate all of these individuals and what they do for our country.

This is a good bill. I urge Members to vote for it.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 582, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

I was just going to tell the gentleman that I have speakers that aren't here, so I am ready to move on, as well. I appreciate the ranking member. He has done a great job. He has been a great partner in this process, and I can't overstate how highly I think of him.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the en bloc amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong), my friend and colleague and an outstanding member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama does not wish to seek recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), a friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), another outstanding member of the Florida congressional delegation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I think the comments made by my colleague were perfectly appropriate. We have to deal with China and a whole series of issues, but to say that we should not collaborate with them on basic scientific research, that as was bluntly stated, could literally help us cure cancer is not something that is in our best interest.

We also have to realize that China is a major factor in the world. We would like to get to a more peaceful relationship with them. Cutting off all contact doesn't make sense. Even at the height of the Cold War when we were aggressively trying to stand up to the Soviet Union, a bipartisan group of legislators kept dialogue up between the two countries.

Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague that this amendment goes too far and I urge opposition.

Madam Chair, the ignorance contained in these comments is really breathtaking. Transgender people who have normal, regular healthcare are no more likely to commit suicide than anybody else.

Basically, the statistics he is showing say once somebody identifies as having a problem, they are more likely to have a problem.

I mean, that would be like saying, we have identified that servicemembers who complain of PTSD symptoms are more likely to commit suicide.

The point is to get proper care for transgender people, and you won't have

these issues. It is the ignorance that has prevented them from getting that proper care.

By the way, the overwhelming majority of transgender people don't need any of this any more than any of us do, but when they need it, they need it, just like when anybody else does.

To Ms. Jacobs' point, we need to recruit people. Being bigoted against transgender people takes a huge population out of the recruitment.

This is a very simple, easy thing to do and deal with. Again, I really want to emphasize not every transgender person needs this care.

If you have a problem, yes, you are more likely to have a problem, but that is true of anybody regardless of your gender. We need transgender people to serve in the military. This amendment will make that more difficult and should be defeated.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Let's be clear on what this amendment is doing. It is taking healthcare services away from servicemembers and their families. That is what this is doing. It is denying them access to healthcare.

The only way this amendment makes sense is if you believe that transgender people do not exist. That is the only way this makes sense. Unfortunately for the makers of this amendment, transgender people absolutely exist. This denial of their existence hurts certainly transgender people, but if you are a servicemember and you have somebody in your family who needs this care, you are going to get out of the service now because the military is saying that your child doesn't actually exist, doesn't actually need the same healthcare that every other child needs.

Again, it is repeated over and over again, oh, this has nothing to do with defending the country. Making sure that we have the best people serving in the military is the number one thing to do with defending this country. We are now taking a huge chunk of the population, anyone who has a transgender family member or even anyone who thinks they might at some point, and saying: You are out, don't serve. No matter how capable, no matter how qualified you are, we are going to make it impossible for you to serve primarily because of the colossal ignorance that a lot of people have about what transgender means.

You can listen to the sarcasm in their voices: They don't know if they are a man or a woman. That is not what transgender is, okay? It is both a very legitimate psychological and physical issue that some people have to deal with, just like in the special needs services. I have met with servicemembers who had a child who had any manner of different problems. They were able to stay in the military because their child could get the care they needed. We are taking all those people and kicking them to the curb because we are ignorant of what transgender is and the importance of dealing with it.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

President Biden's policy on Ukraine has been clear and it has got two pieces: First, do what we can to support Ukraine, to make sure that a sovereign democratic Ukraine survives; second, don't go to war with Russia.

So it is the red herring of all red herrings to say that U.S. troops are going to be put into this conflict. The conflict has been going on for over 18 months. We have very carefully not dragged U.S. troops, or even NATO troops, into this conflict.

What we are doing is we are supporting a sovereign democratic Ukraine against a tyrannical dictator who is trying to take over that country through violence. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he won't stop at Ukraine.

I also am interested in the sponsor of this amendment's remark that the U.S. shouldn't care about what goes on in the rest of the world which, I guess, means we shouldn't care about what is going on in China.

The purpose of all of this is deterrence. We want to deter Russia from going further than Ukraine. We want to deter China from thinking they can use military force to claim sovereign territory.

Deterrence is what will stop U.S. servicemembers from winding up dying in a war. We need to support Ukraine.