Providing for further 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, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I light up the Republican Conference for an absolutely awful process that made a series of offensive amendments in order and blocked some very reasonable amendments, I want the record to reflect that I have the deepest respect and affection for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). He always sounds reasonable, in part, because he is a reasonable person. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by Members who are not reasonable, who are not rational, and who are not fair.

Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment that he gave me. Dealing with him is always an exercise in civility and there is mutual respect here. I appreciate him. I appreciate the staff on both sides of the aisle who were up until 2:30 in the morning last night as we were dealing with this rule. I regret very much the process that has brought us to where we are right now.

Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week the Rules Committee was unexpectedly called back at 11 o'clock last night. We sat and waited for over an hour for the meeting to actually get underway, all because Republicans couldn't get their act together.

Republicans had to have yet another backroom meeting, another midnight seance to resurrect this rule because a dozen or so far right, MAGA wing nuts once again threw a fit and hijacked the bill when they realized they weren't going to get a bill that was perfect to them.

It should go without saying, but it is outrageous that a tiny minority of Republicans is getting to dictate exactly what amendments come to the floor. It is outrageous that the Rules Committee last night managed to mess up a bipartisan bill and put it on a path toward becoming a hyperpartisan one by loading it up with every divisive social issue under the Sun. Here is my word of wisdom to Republican leadership: When you have a razor-thin margin in one-half of one branch of government, you don't get your way on everything. Democracy means compromise. Divided government means compromise. Compromise means you don't get everything you want. There has to be a give and take.

I have to admit that I have never in all my time here experienced an NDAA process as outrageously bad as this one. This bill passed out of the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 58-1. Let me repeat that. It passed with a bipartisan vote of 58-1.

Looking at how extreme most of the Republican amendments are that were made in order, I would be surprised if

this bill can even pass the House. I fear what this final bill is going to look like because of the amendments they are making in order today. This is honestly a disaster. I never ever want to hear lectures about process ever again.

Mr. Speaker, when I was chairman, Democrats made in order over 650 amendments. Democrats made in order over half of all amendments submitted because we believed in the radical idea that we ought to actually do our job and debate things.

Republicans in this NDAA have made in order fewer than a quarter of all the amendments submitted. In fact, despite a record number of amendment submissions this year, they made in order fewer amendments than every Democratic-led NDAA.

What is worse, these are the worst of the worst amendments. They blocked dozens and dozens of commonsense ideas, but they paved the way for the most radical amendments.

In the rule that we are considering today, they made in order 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and get this, drum roll, please, 4 Democratic amendments.

Some of these amendments made in order were submitted minutes before we held our markup. For all my Republican friends who rant and rave about how important it is to provide enough time for members to read and understand what they are voting on, we had minutes.

As I said, it is not just the number of amendments they are allowing to come to the floor, it is the type of amendments.

The amendments this rule makes in order are so extreme that it will be a wonder how Republicans will pass this bill if the amendments are included in the final version.

We are all supportive of putting more amendments up for votes. That is how this body should work. When Republicans block Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment, and then make in order dozens of the most extreme Republican proposals, they are not trying in good faith to pass a bipartisan bill. They are not being intellectually honest. They are merely serving up red meat to the most extreme fringe of the Republican base in this country.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example. Many of us supported a bipartisan amendment to allow an up or down vote on whether or not the United States should transfer cluster bombs to other countries. I personally do not think this country should be giving cluster munitions to any country because they can harm civilians, and they do harm civilians.

At the last second, our amendment was cut from the rule and replaced by an amendment that would only prevent the transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine. That is really puzzling to me because when the Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, and the ranking Democrat of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, I asked them a specific question: whether or not they would allow this bipartisan amendment banning cluster munitions to be made in order. Do you know what they said? They had no problem with making it in order.

To have it all of a sudden removed is just puzzling to me. Why do we have hearings--why do we solicit answers on basic questions like: Do you think this would be a good thing to debate on? Are you okay debating on this amendment?--if these hearings mean nothing?

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is being offered by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been vocal in her opposition to supporting Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression. What is this all about?

We want to prevent cluster munitions from going to any country, Ukraine and other countries. Why the narrowing down of this amendment? Why give this amendment to somebody who I don't believe cares about the impact of cluster munitions but is only interested in undermining our policy toward Ukraine?

Forgive our skepticism in thinking that this isn't really about cluster bombs for the new amendment sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I asked for both amendments to be made in order. I thought that was a fair deal, right? Keep the amendment that we originally had dealing with you can't send cluster bombs anywhere, and you can keep the Marjorie Taylor Greene one. Let's have a debate on both. Let's see where people are. I was told ``no.'' In fact, every single Republican voted ``no.''

It is clear to me that this is about buying off Members of the MAGA fringe. It is about appeasing a small group of radical, hard-right Members, the MAGA circus I call them, a group that is extorting the Speaker of the House and threatening to take down the bill, and maybe threatening to take down his speakership if they don't get every single thing that they want.

What they want is to load up the NDAA with every single divisive social issue under the sun. The group that is pushing these amendments is the so-called Freedom Caucus. I say so-called because they don't care about freedom.

They are demanding amendments that threaten a woman's access to abortion. They are demanding amendments that roll back LGBTQIA+ rights. They are demanding amendments that undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

The Freedom Caucus doesn't care about freedom when it is a woman's freedom to make their decisions about their own bodies or someone's freedom to love who they want or be who they are, or people's freedom to not get shot at school, a grocery store, or a mall.

America needs to understand who the Freedom Caucus is and what they stand for. They do not care about your freedom. They care about their own freedom. They care about their freedom to do whatever the hell they want to do, the American people be damned. What an embarrassment. That is who Kevin McCarthy has put in charge.

We are here debating social issues in a defense bill because the far right, the MAGA fringe, the Freedom Caucus are obsessed with these culture wars. They say Democrats are the ones injecting social issues into the military, but make no mistake, they are the ones who are doing that.

Kevin McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme Members of his own Conference while hanging everyone else out to dry. It is all so that he can hold on to his power. I almost feel bad for our Republican colleagues who are closer to the center, if any of them still exist. Kevin McCarthy may be the MAGA ringmaster, but it is clear that the clowns have taken over the circus.

Mr. Speaker, so many of the amendments this rule makes in order are simply offensive. They have the potential to really hurt people, and they are destructive. I hope that all my colleagues are well-read on what each does before they come to the floor over the next few days to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin. I will just say to the gentleman that I actually do a lot of work on the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren because some kids don't have moms and dads. Aunts and uncles are raising their nieces and their nephews. So, I don't know even know what that rant was about.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that prevents implementing the unanimous recommendations made by the bipartisan base renaming commission. The goal of the commission--for my colleagues to be informed--was to ensure that our bases do not celebrate Confederate officers who took up arms against the United States. That is right. The amendment actually stops us from implementing unanimous recommendations to rename bases named after Confederates, men who fought on the side of slavery.

Contrast that with some of the amendments that my Republican colleagues blocked last night. An amendment to provide veterans with free mental health visits was blocked. An amendment to provide funding to organizations to assist the transition of servicemembers back to civilian life was blocked because it was too woke. On my amendment to provide ride-sharing transportation for homeless veterans, they all voted no.

All of them were blocked, but this Confederate base renaming amendment was made in order. That is their priority, protecting the good name of Confederates, literal traitors to the United States? This is the big issue for the Republican Party on the NDAA.

I will say to the gentleman from Texas who was just shouting on the floor that when he talks about this being a good process, again, in this rule that we are considering right now and bringing to the floor right now, there

are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic amendments. How is that fair or reasonable under any measure?

I could go on and on about how awful some of the Republican amendments are. Let me just highlight another one. Mr. Roy, a member of the Rules Committee, submitted an amendment that says that we are not allowed to teach people that any part of the Constitution has ever been racist.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I was a history major in college. Do I have to explain to people what the three-fifths compromise was? When the Constitution was written, it counted enslaved African Americans as three-fifths of a person, for God's sake. The Constitution literally said that Black people weren't full people when it was written.

Does the author of this amendment just want us to pretend like it didn't happen?

I am someone who actually is proud that America has made progress since then. I am proud of the work that so many have done to right these wrongs. I find this attempt to diminish that progress and to pretend as if there was never any racism in this country incredibly offensive.

Slavery? Never happened.

Jim Crow? What is that? Racism doesn't exist.

Three-fifths compromise? Never heard of it.

This is all just so, so wrong.

For the record, it wasn't until the 14th Amendment passed in 1868 that the three-fifths compromise was explicitly repealed.

So, what is the point of this amendment? To imply that slavery didn't happen? To imply that racism wasn't a problem? To rewrite history and gloss over the three-fifths compromise?

There was a time when the racism of the Republican Party was more subtle. Now, it is just out in the open. They might as well have made in order an amendment to bring back the Confederacy.

I find it incredibly, incredibly disgusting that this was made in order. This is wrong. It is racist. It is really offensive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this rule makes in order a number of truly, truly offensive amendments.

You know what? If the majority wants to do that and put this bipartisan bill at risk, that is their prerogative. It is, again, the contrast between what they are prioritizing and what they are blocking that astonishes me.

For example, the rule makes in order an amendment to restrict servicewomen from accessing abortion care when 40 percent of Active Duty servicewomen now serve in States that have banned or restricted access to abortion.

These servicewomen are stationed based on the needs of our Nation and not on personal preference and deserve access to crucial reproductive healthcare services.

I look forward to voting ``no'' on that amendment, but an amendment I won't have a chance to vote on is my amendment that calls for an annual report to Congress on atrocity prevention and response in Sudan.

Why does this rule make room for a controversial amendment to prevent abortion care, which might threaten the passage of this bill, by the way, but it blocks dozens and dozens of noncontroversial amendments like that one? What is wrong with a report on atrocity prevention?

I genuinely do not understand, Mr. Speaker. There is only one explanation that I have, and that is that rational people are not calling the shots here.

Mr. Speaker, rather than these culture wars designed to kind of relive the Confederacy that some of my colleagues seem hell-bent on doing, we ought to be talking about things that matter to the American people. We ought to be talking about how we protect Social Security and Medicare.

I am going to urge a ``no'' vote so that we can bring up an amendment to get Members on record saying that they do want to protect Social Security and Medicare.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question and to speak on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

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

Mr. Speaker, this process has shown us the priorities of the Republican majority; protecting the reputation of confederate leaders, banning books because they want to rewrite history, controlling women's bodies.

Overturning Roe v. Wade wasn't enough. They want to ban abortion nationwide. They want to restrict a servicemember's ability to get travel expenses covered, attacking LGBTQ+ servicemembers, cutting off aid to Ukraine in the middle of their fight against Putin, stifling diversity and equity in the military, and shrugging off climate change, which the Department of Defense says poses a direct threat to our national security.

You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. The thing is, many Republicans know that these amendments are offensive. They know these plans and these ideas are unpopular. That is why there has been so much whiplash the last few days to get this rule to the floor today.

What was not on their priority list in this bill? I will tell you what was not on their priority list; reducing the NDAA top line, which is far too high and wastes taxpayer dollars.

In the appropriations process, they are cutting moneys from WIC and from Meals on Wheels, but they boost up the defense budget.

What is not on their list is helping our veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. They rejected an amendment on that yesterday in the Rules Committee.

What is not on their list is protecting access to reproductive healthcare or ensuring the ability for transgender individuals to serve their country or encouraging diversity and equity in all military ranks or preventing the transfer of cluster munitions to all countries.

That is not even to mention the dozens of noncontroversial Democratic amendments that would simply authorize reports on our national defense.

This is ridiculous. Let me again remind everybody in this rule, there are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic amendments. On what planet is that even considered reasonably fair? This is outrageous.

Again, a big chunk of the Democratic amendments, you may not agree with them, but we ought to have 10 minutes

of debate and a vote up or down on them.

As they say, this is about getting ``woke'' out of the military. They blocked my amendment to help homeless vets get rides to medical appointments. What the hell is woke about that? They blocked it because it was woke. I mean, I don't even know what they are thinking.

Look, if the extreme MAGA amendments pass and this NDAA bill passes on a partisan vote, it should not be seen as a victory for Speaker McCarthy.

Barely passing a bill that usually passes with a supermajority is not a victory. I wish him luck in negotiations with the Senate where some of these policies will be nonstarters.

The Speaker of the House needs to grow a spine, not for his own reputation but for the good of this country. This is a terrible, terrible process. These amendments are pathetic that have been made in order. They are offensive. It disrespects and diminishes this institution.

It is sad to see the small group of extremists calling the shots here, but that is what is happening right now. They have turned this defense bill into a place for them to launch their culture wars.

What a disservice to our country; what an insult to the Members of this Chamber; what an insult to the men and women who serve our country that these are the priorities that we are debating here today. I mean, give me a break.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 583 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) the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 583.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for further consideration of H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, or NDAA, under a structured rule. It makes in

order 80 amendments for consideration on the floor, and it provides for one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed a rule setting the parameters for general debate on H.R. 2670 and making in order 289 amendments. At the time, we made clear that the work of the Rules Committee was not yet finished. There was additional work that was left to be done, additional considerations to be had, and additional member priorities to take into consideration.

After a robust discussion, we reported out the rule that is before us today. Taking up this rule will allow us to advance our work forward and will move H.R. 2670 toward a vote on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I know some in this House will express frustration with the process. Yes, perhaps it would have been more convenient for us to have done our work more quickly.

As this House is well aware, the NDAA is one of the most critical pieces of legislation the House considers each year. It sets overall policy for the Department of Defense and the armed services and allows Congress to set our defense priorities for the year. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes spending levels on national defense for the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, on a bill that is this critical to the Nation, it is much more important for us to get things right rather than to do things quickly. When dealing with national defense, we have a sacred obligation to give the American people our best efforts. Although this may have taken a bit longer than anyone, including myself, would have liked, I am proud to say that the rule fulfills that obligation.

I like to think of this, Mr. Speaker, as a process where the House has been working its will. Frankly, we will have a pretty spirited debate here, I suspect, but it is worth noting that the underlying bill that came out of the House Armed Services Committee is pretty much intact. In other words, it has been changed very little in the amendment process yesterday, and I would argue it will be changed relatively little by the amendment process today.

The majority of the items that we deal with today are going to shift. These aren't going to be straight partisan debates in many cases. My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I will probably be on the same side when it comes to helping Ukraine in what we think is a very important struggle. We will probably be on different sides when we come to cluster munitions and whether they should or should not be used. Uncharacteristically, I will be on the President's side, and my friend will have a different opinion on that.

I say that just to say that that's how this place is supposed to work. You move back and forth, you pick the right decisions, and at the end of the day, there will be a final product and we will have a straight up or down.

Before anybody gets too elated or too disappointed, I will remind everyone that it is not as if this is the last day. This is a vehicle, if it passes, that we will take into conference, and that will be a conference between a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and it will involve a Democratic President.

Mr. Speaker, I say all that to say that I suspect the process will continue to change the product as we move along. Again, I wouldn't be too giddy if I won today, and I wouldn't be too disappointed, no matter what your particular issue is, if I lost. I do think it is critically important that the vehicle move and that we push forward and sit down and work with our colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda in the Senate, and work with the President of the United States at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We need to make sure that we do--for the 63rd consecutive year--what we have done for 62 years, and that is provide for the common defense of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth remembering that this is going to be a bipartisan product at the end of the day. There is no way a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President are going to do anything on any issue that is not essentially bipartisan. That is the way the process works.

No matter what is happening at a given moment, I think we are preordained to come to an agreement that broadly reflects compromise.

Mr. Speaker, we have had two very late nights at the Rules Committee, and I thank particularly my friend, the ranking member, and each and every member of that committee for putting in the hours that it took. I thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle who worked really, really hard.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff of the House, particularly our overworked stenographers that were staying there late at night to make sure that we got our job done.

Again, I credit my friend, the ranking member, for this. We have had the good fortune to serve together on this committee for a long time. We had a contentious debate last night, but it was always a civil debate and it was always a professional debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the tenor he set for our committee when he was chairman. I am proud of the manner in which he approaches his work each and every day. I am very proud to have the opportunity to work with him in the House.

Again, we will have our differences today--fair enough. I thank my friend for the kind of committee member that he is and, frankly, his commitment to the institution. I say that about each and every member on the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and about their staff and about the staff of the full House that facilitates our ability to work together and produce a product.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my very good friend who was there for every minute of the Rules Committee hearings last night and the night before, and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is another member of the Rules Committee who has been fighting the good fight for the last two nights well past midnight.

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

I want to go back to a point on this issue of abortion. Quite frankly, we look at this issue very differently. As my friend, Mr. Roy from Texas, said, we see the administration as having directly intervened and changed existing policy.

We have something called the Hyde amendment, which has been passed for years, decades, over and over again, and it prohibits using Federal tax dollars for abortion. Facilitating abortion is exactly what we are talking about here.

Now, was there any consultation with us when the executive branch decided to do that? No, there wasn't.

As my friend from Texas pointed out, there is a pretty big pushback on our side.

We have worked in a bipartisan fashion. That is why that bill came out of committee 58-1. Most of the amendments on this floor in the last couple days have been bipartisan, and we have worked together.

There are issues where we simply don't agree, and this is, at the end of the day, a majoritarian institution.

While my friend talks about the extremist this or the extremist that, if it is an extremist amendment, it won't win the majority.

These amendments that are going to come up here are either going to win or lose. Some of them are going to lose.

Some of the time, my friend and I are actually going to be voting the same way on those amendments. Other times, we will vote differently. We will certainly vote differently at the end of the day when it comes time to vote on the bill.

That is the way the game is played here. To say that some majority is being run by extremists, by definition, that is almost impossible because you can't be the majority on the House floor if it is true.

Again, you can disagree, and I respect the disagreement, but the initiator, particularly in the case of abortion and I would say some of the other culture clashes that we are having on this bill, has been the administration, has been policies that were decided in this administration and sometimes pushed on the military against their own wishes.

Again, it is the executive branch. They get to run the military. They get to do what they want to do. But please, when you get a response from people that genuinely disagree, to say they started it by responding is simply not the case.

Again, I look forward to this debate. I understand that people will have very different opinions. I do remind everybody that 95 percent of this bill is this bill, you know. It was bipartisan. It does deal with the military. Very little of much of the debate has dealt with the military.

I actually sit on the Defense Appropriations Committee. We spend a lot of time talking about what is the right mix of arms? What is going to happen in terms of artillery? What are we doing to update AWACS? I can go on and on. Most of the discussions in the House Armed Services Committee were similar.

Again, we are going to have these differences and let the chips fall where they may. I would suspect whatever product comes off this floor will be the product that the majority of this body chose.

Then we will go, as my friends well know, to sit down with the United States Senate, and they will have a different product, and the President will be part of that discussion because he has to sign the bill.

We are going to have a pretty good tussle here. To think this is the be-all and end-all today I think is a disservice to the process and how it unfolds and how it actually works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution. Today's rule makes in order 80 amendments reflecting Member priorities on both sides of the aisle.

Although I would have liked to have worked more quickly, on a matter that is so critical as the annual NDAA we owe the American people no less than whatever time is necessary to complete this important task.

I remind the House that the NDAA has been passed into law every year for 62 consecutive years. I am confident that with today's rule, we are well on the way to making it 63.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to point out and emphasize several important facts that sometimes get lost in the spirited debate.

The first one is that about 95 percent of this bill is exactly what passed out of the House Armed Services Committee 58-1, as my friends have pointed out, and I agree. Most of this bill is extraordinarily bipartisan. Most of the amendments that have come to this floor, 300 yesterday, or 290, roughly, were bipartisan and were accepted no matter who authored them, Democrat or Republican, by either side.

As I said yesterday, this was going to be more contentious today, and that is fine. But to suggest that anything you disagree with that passes is extreme, I think, frankly, you are leaping to a conclusion.

Some of these amendments that my friend points to the most probably won't pass, probably won't make it. Again, there is nothing inappropriate about that. I mean, I have come down here--and I know my friend has--plenty of times and fought for things that we believed in that may have been right or wrong, but we lost or won. What comes out of here will be what a majority of the House decides is appropriate.

Now, as I have said multiple times in the course of the debate, this is a process, not an event. The reality is, we are going to sit down at some point, almost certainly, with the Senate and the President. The Senate is Democratic, and the President is a Democrat. We are going to have a discussion and a debate, and I suspect the product that comes out of that will be different than the one that emerges here. That is okay. It will be different than what the Senate writes, and it will be different than what the President's budget was and what he proposed.

Nobody is going to get everything they want. At the end of the day, everybody is going to have to give and take, and the reality is if we get to a bill, which I think we will because we have for 62 consecutive years, it is going to be a bipartisan compromise.

We can have all the theatrics and all the flailing of arms. That is part of the process, too. At the end of the day, almost all of this bill is bipartisan, and almost all of this bill is supported by the majority of both sides of the aisle. There are individual flash points where we disagree.

I know about getting rolled in debates. I remember my Democratic friends spending $1.9 trillion without a single Republican vote and unleashing the worst inflation we have seen in 40 years. I remember them bringing a bill to this floor called the Inflation Reduction Act that had zero to do with inflation and was everything about green climate. Fair enough. If you want to do that, that is okay. You didn't get a single Republican vote, but you won, and you got it through the Senate and got the President of the United States to sign it.

There are plenty of times that one side has steamrolled the other. There are other times when we negotiate together. Welcome to the House of Representatives and to American politics.

What we are going to deal with today, there will be a lot of sound. There will be a lot of noise.

Most of the bill is bipartisan. It is an extraordinarily good bill. As a matter of fact, lost in the course of this debate is one of the areas where my friends and I do disagree, and I disagree with the bill, and that is that we are coming in at the President's number. This outrageous, terrible bill is going to be at the number the President proposed. I think that number is too low--I really do--but I am going to vote for it because it is still better than last year and better than a CR, and it moves the country in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, again, I have enjoyed the debate. I always do. I will close by thanking my friend. I mean this with all sincerity. I will end where I began. We have been through a couple of challenging days in the Rules Committee, very long nights. I very much appreciate the professionalism of my friend and his colleagues and my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I very much appreciate the staff that worked very hard on both sides of the aisle and also the wonderful House support staff that we had facilitating our meetings. I thank them all, and I particularly thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Mr. Chairman, just building off of that is really important. I think the President and a whole lot of people have over and over explained what we are doing in Ukraine.

We should not fight every war everywhere. I agree with that. That is why I strongly supported getting us out of Afghanistan long before we actually did. There was not a strategic interest there and, also, U.S. lives were being lost in Afghanistan. That was what was at stake.

In Ukraine, along with 53 other countries in the world, we are supporting an effort to protect a sovereign democracy against a dictatorship. Those are core U.S. interests.

The Ukrainians are doing the fighting. All they are asking for is our support. If we can deter that type of aggression, it does advance U.S. interests. It does protect U.S. servicemembers from having to fight.

We don't want to fight at home. We don't want to fight anywhere in the world, but you have to stand up to dictators who are willing to push that if you are going to get to that place. That is what we are doing in Ukraine in a very effective manner.

Let's not abandon Ukraine at this point. They deserve our support.

Mr. Chair, I actually think the gentleman is correct. China and Russia are very closely aligned, and if you are concerned about Chinese aggression in the world, you must also be concerned about Russian aggression.

I also note that when he quoted me on what the policy was, he conveniently left out the first part. He mentioned that we don't want to get into a war with Russia, but he left out the first part, which is ``preserve a sovereign, democratic Ukraine.'' President Biden and his team have done an excellent job of this.

Nobody thought Ukraine could survive this long, but thanks to their courage, their willingness to fight, and 53 nations that have coalesced to help them, they have been able to preserve a sovereign, democratic Ukraine.

I want to place a strong emphasis on that. I know Americans are rightly worried. Is it just us standing up for these principles in the world? In Ukraine, it is not. It is 53 nations that are contributing across the board, 53 nations that believe preserving economic and political freedom requires us to not let an autocrat like Vladimir Putin run over Ukraine. Please oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, I oppose this broad reactionary and irresponsible amendment because it would harm U.S. interests and undermine scientific progress for the American people and the world.

There is no question that the PRC poses real challenges to the United States and that it is engaged in technological and economic competition with us. We know that the PRC is engaged in harmful research to boost its military, that it engages in technology and IP theft. These are challenges worth tackling, and the Biden administration and Congress have taken steps to protect ourselves against these activities in effective and responsible ways.

This amendment, however, goes entirely too far. When a careful and scalpel-like approach is needed to ensure we are not contributing to China's military or providing China with advanced and sensitive technology and know-how, this amendment uses a guillotine to cut off support for any form of research collaboration between the United States and China.

As drafted, this amendment would prevent any U.S. funding of, contracting with, or partnership with any individual or entity connected to the PRC government. Let's be clear about what that would mean. This would prohibit collaboration with all the major public universities in China, endangering academic collaboration and research partnerships between U.S. and Chinese institutions.

We should be worried about AI and supercomputing. This amendment would cut off collaboration on completely harmless and often very beneficial social science research on things such as poverty reduction and economic development.

This amendment would make it harder for American academics and researchers to partner with the Chinese people, many of them who may not have any love for the CCP and would benefit from talking directly to and working with an American and learning about the freedoms and values that Americans enjoy.

More critically, this amendment would cut off collaboration on medical research that could literally save lives of Americans and people around the world. Let me give you one example. Right now doctors and researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York are collaborating with the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group to conduct shared clinical trials in hospitals in the United States and China to develop modern cancer drugs. We need to make sure this research collaboration happens in a safe and secure way, but why would we prohibit it? Why would we not want to work together to find a cure for cancer?

Ultimately, we cannot and must not follow the Chinese Communist Party's example and close ourselves off to the world and the Chinese people. That is what they do. That is not what America does.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Ms. Jacobs).

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

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

As we consider this amendment today, Ukrainians are suffering greatly as Russia's brutal war against their sovereignty continues unabated. Seventy-eight percent of Ukrainians have had either a family member or a friend die because of Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Cities have been decimated, families have been broken, and lives have been lost.

But the Zelenskyy government stands, the fight for democracy is alive, and Ukrainian willpower is and has been unflappable, and Putin's so-called ``special military operation'' has become one of the biggest strategic catastrophes in Russian history as we stand today. Russian generals are disappearing, and the Wagner group was marching on Moscow, not Kyiv, just a few weeks ago.

The United States' security assistance has been absolutely essential for the Ukrainian Army's heroic stand against the invaders of their homeland. We cannot and must not pull back now. The cost of this war on the Ukrainian people has been immense, but their bravery has been even more monumental.

I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I am confident that it

will, in fact, be opposed in a strong bipartisan vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I request an Advil, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chair, do I have any more time remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with certain members of the Republican Party's continued opposition to aiding Ukraine.

Our security assistance to Ukraine over the past year plus has been crucial to Ukrainian efforts to counter Russia's illegal, immoral, and reprehensible invasion of another sovereign nation.

If Vladimir Putin and our foreign adversaries can invade other countries without any response from the United States or our allies around the globe, then every country in the world becomes less safe.

The United States is not fighting a war in Ukraine. We are giving Ukrainians the weapons they need to fight the war for themselves and defend their country from totalitarian invaders.

We must support our friends who are standing on the front lines of the fight for freedom in this world. I oppose this amendment forcefully, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chair, in Ukraine, since day one of this war, attacks have been aimed at civilian structures, hospitals, energy infrastructure, and urban centers. In the battlefield, Russia has brutally murdered prisoners of war as their Wagnerites occupied Ukraine's towns and territory.

Allied military sources say that Russia has landmined Ukrainian territory at an unprecedented rate, making it one of the largest minefields in the world. These minefields in war zones and in agricultural areas will likely cause civilian death and require billions of dollars to safely remove in the coming years. The World Bank estimated the cost to be at $37.6 billion.

Ukraine is paying for their freedom with their lives as we speak, but the mental, emotional, familial, and social scars will be there for generations to come. Ukrainian citizens are living through a nightmare because of their push toward democracy during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014.

This amendment prohibits a feasibility study on centers for treatment of traumatic brain injuries to improve the lives of individuals affected by traumatic brain injury experienced in Ukraine as a result of Russian aggression and to improve the lives of the family members of such an individual.

Honestly, we should be funding centers across the world because that is a better expression of democracy than what is often exhibited.

This amendment is callous, and America and our partners' support of Ukraine's fight for freedom is better than that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this is another amendment that is fearmongering about China when Republicans are continuing to actually undermine our national security by restricting and banning abortion.

Our servicemembers volunteered to serve in our armed services. They didn't volunteer to give up their reproductive rights.

I am thankful that DOD has taken steps to support servicemembers and their dependents' reproductive freedom by covering the travel and transportation costs for abortion and fertility care in the post-Roe era.

Let's be clear: DOD's travel policy is consistent with the law. We shouldn't reverse this progress and take away our servicemembers' freedom when they have already sacrificed so much for us.

In the 1 year since the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, 20 States have restricted or banned abortion. This decision has disproportionately burdened our military families, who don't often choose where they are stationed. They can't freely take off days from work. Many can't afford to travel thousands of miles and pay out of pocket to receive the care they need and deserve, all because of the current statutory ban on DOD providing abortion services, which I strongly oppose.

That is why DOD's travel policy has been so important. As one of the few women of reproductive age in Congress, I know how important access to abortion and fertility care is to our health, freedom, economic security, and empowerment.

Taking away these fundamental rights doesn't just hurt these individuals. It hurts our military readiness, recruitment and retention, and morale, putting our national security in jeopardy.

With many people having zero access to abortion services where they are stationed, our military's ability to adapt to evolving conflicts and challenges has been very compromised.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Trans servicemembers have served and served successfully for years.

In fact, trans people are even more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people, so it is mind-boggling that we would want to deter and discriminate against a group of people who have proven their patriotism and deep commitment to our country.

All of us are well aware that we are facing steep military recruitment and retention challenges. This amendment will worsen this crisis by pushing transgender servicemembers out of the military. That is because gender-affirming care is necessary and medically backed.

Care that gives you the ability to be your true, authentic self is primary care, and it is not something that should be easily dismissed.

If our servicemembers constantly worry about their right to exist, their ability to serve our country is jeopardized, and it harms our readiness and ability to respond quickly and effectively to national security challenges.

I am not alone on this. Secretary Austin agrees that allowing people to serve as their authentic self is the right and the smart thing to do for our military operations.

That is why I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our values and our readiness and oppose this harmful amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.

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

I thank Ranking Member Smith for his comments, and I will emphasize that transgender people are people.

They are much more than statistics. They are people serving our country. They are people who care and are patriotic.

They are more likely to harm themselves and suffer from mental health challenges due to the harmful rhetoric they hear from elected officials denying their right to exist.

My youngest sibling, my brother, is trans, and he is one of the most responsible people I know. I would be thrilled if he wanted to serve our country, and you should be, too.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague--

The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 45 seconds remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, let's be clear: Every major medical association in the United States, every single major medical association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million United States doctors, has affirmed that gender-affirming care is safe and effective.

Healthcare decisions for children should be between the patient, the parents, and the healthcare provider, not the government, not some politician who has no idea what he is talking about. I wonder what you would do if your kid came to you, sure that they were in the wrong body.

Madam Chair, I have talked to parents. Many of them didn't think they believed in trans issues either. But it should be between a parent, their child, and their doctor what healthcare decisions get made.

By denying servicemembers the ability to provide medically necessary care for their children, including by relocating, this amendment will likely lead to servicemembers leaving the military and will weaken efforts to recruit other people who do or may have transgender family members.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible amendment.