Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, let me focus on one argument of the sponsor of this amendment, who is basically saying that if we pass this bill, we are advocating the killing of Ukrainians.

That is a uniquely demented way of looking at this war. Putin invades. Putin, as we speak, is bombing and killing Ukrainian civilians. The only thing that is reducing the number that he can kill is the Ukrainians' ability to fight back.

So to look at this from a pure Russian propaganda standpoint, they invade, they bomb, they kill, and it is our fault for helping the Ukrainians defend themselves.

That is the argument here against supporting Ukraine, and it literally makes no sense.

If you want peace, give the Ukrainians the strength to stop Putin. He is the one that will not come to the bargaining table right now because he thinks he is winning. He thinks he can go all the way to Kyiv. He thinks he can take the whole country.

If we give the Ukrainians the ability to stop him, that forces him to the table. It makes no sense to say that giving the Ukrainians the ability to defend themselves is what is killing them, when it is very clearly the Russians that are killing them.

Mr. Chair, I would also note that no President has added more to the debt in one 4-year term than President Trump, and I didn't hear a single Republican complaining about the debt or the deficit during that period of time.

The Ukrainians need our help to bring peace, to stop Putin, to stop what he is trying to do. Also, to Ms. McCollum's point, this also helps our industrial base.

We face a dangerous world between Russia, Iran, China, North Korea-- all of whom who are working together, by the way. If we don't help Ukraine fight Russia, that helps Iran, that helps China, that helps North Korea. This is about our national security, which I am quite confident that whether asleep or awake, the American people also care dearly about.

Please defeat this amendment and support Ukraine and support the United States' national security interests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

Established by Congress in 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has had tremendous success reducing poverty, building sustainable economic growth, and promoting good governance in lower income countries.

Over the past two decades, MCC has invested nearly $17 billion in 86 projects across 50 countries, delivering results for over a quarter billion people in sectors including agriculture, energy, health care, transportation, and education. MCC's data driven, evidence-based approach to foreign assistance is a vital model to address the challenges of our times. The agency's focus on results paired with rigorous transparency, and oversight standards ensures we are investing in the most effective solutions in partner countries that share our values.

These efforts not only improve people's lives and promote stability, resilience, and growth, but also crucially advance U.S. global development priorities and national security goals. As geopolitical and social challenges around the world continue to evolve, it is essential to recognize the value investments in programs that build resilient communities and promote poverty reduction have on our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the incredible work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation for the last 20 years and look forward to its continued success.

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Chairman's conclusions. We worked this process as bipartisan and as open as any process in Congress. We had the markup in committee, we had the floor vote, and we had a bunch of amendments. The Senate did the same. We went to a conference committee, and we had a very robust discussion.

We had disagreements. There are a lot of things in this bill that I do not like, but we have bipartisan control here. We have the Senate controlled by the Democrats, the White House controlled by the Democrats--they have to sign the bill--and the House controlled by the Republicans. So we worked a good compromise.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is it supports our troops in their efforts to defend this country and to meet our national security needs. It has a robust pay increase, it has increases in basic housing allowance, and a number of other provisions to support our troops and their families.

Critically, it solidifies our alliances with our European allies, with our allies in Asia and with Israel and our allies in the Middle East, to meet the threats that we face.

You cannot oppose this bill and claim that you support the national security of this country because this bill represents that bipartisan compromise that we worked for to get a good bill, to meet our national security needs, and again, I would emphasis, to support our troops and to support their families.

Nothing is more important to the national security of this country than the people who we ask to defend it. This bill protects them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member in the body to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just briefly on the 702 issue. Section 702 needs to be reformed. There is no question about that. Nobody I know of, however, says that it should completely go away. If we don't do it on this bill, it completely goes away on January 1, which is a huge national security threat to this country, universally agreed.

Now, I agree with the gentleman that we should debate that policy, but it is fascinating because on Tuesday we were set up to debate that policy. We had a couple different choices there, and the very people now who are screaming that we can't extend this without reform blocked the rule that would have allowed us to reform 702. It really doesn't make any sense.

What this bill does is it gives us time to do the reforms that need to be done without jeopardizing national security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intel Committee who knows this issue very, very well.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining for the various Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I want to focus on this notion that this is how this town works and how terrible that is. I really don't understand where people get the idea that the way the world works is that you get absolutely everything you want and nobody else gets anything. That isn't how this town works. This is how life works in your family, your community, and in your neighborhood--everywhere.

I know these Members know this because we just had the vote on Israel not long ago. I would ask: What does the IRS have to do with defending Israel? Somehow, these Members decided that they had to put the IRS cuts in with Israel. They all voted for it and were happy as clams.

If you don't like the deal, fine, vote ``no.'' That's cool.

The idea that you say that this is just the worst process in the world, apparently you don't like democracy because that is what democracy is. You compromise and work with people. You do it all the time.

Argue against the substance of the bill, but please stop tearing down this institution and tearing down this democracy. We have to try to get along with people we don't agree with.

Madam Speaker, to quote ``Game of Thrones'': ``We make peace with our enemies, not our friends.'' You have to find a way to get along with people who you disagree with. The chairman of the committee did an outstanding job of doing that in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the money from the IRS was not a pay-for. It actually increased the deficit. Under the rules of the House, the people who decide how to score those things scored it as adding money to it.

It wasn't a pay-for. It was going after the IRS to appease people so they could vote for the larger package.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, I could go second to last, but I am prepared to close at this point, as well.

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

I think the most revealing thing said by the gentleman from Texas was: A majority of Republicans. A majority of Republicans supported something, so how possibly could we not do it?

That really reflects their opposition. They would like the majority of Republicans to control this bill.

Now, to the credit of the chairman and others, they recognize that bipartisan compromise is what we have to get to. They believe that what they want they get regardless of how anybody else votes. That is not the way the process works.

We have worked a very good bill and got a very good outcome here. We haven't even mentioned things like the AUKUS agreement, a crucial agreement in deterring China and strengthening our allies. There are a whole lot of things in this bill that are going to have a very positive outcome on national security.

Also, I do want to point out that this is important for the House to be involved. If we insist upon the notion that everybody has to agree, then we become irrelevant. This is the House expressing oversight of the executive branch, and, yes, it is on the Defense bill, but it is also in the Intel bill, and it is in the Foreign Affairs bill. If we aren't able to do that, then the executive branch becomes more powerful, and we disappear.

Now, in the appropriations process we tried that. The House couldn't pass roughly one-half of the appropriations bills because everybody insisted on having it exactly their way, and, again, we have rendered ourselves irrelevant.

Please vote for this bill. It is a reflection of a bipartisan and bicameral effort of the legislative branch to assert its authority and its obligation to exercise oversight.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I echo Mr. Rogers' comments. Our staff is beyond

fantastic. I have not had as much time in this debate to thank them as I would like. They have done a great job. The floor staff and the parliamentary staff pulled it all together.

On a note of personal privilege, I specifically thank Connor Stubbs, my legislative director, for his outstanding work. He has the bad taste to be leaving my office tomorrow and going on to bigger and better things. He has done an outstanding job and is really reflective of the entire staff that I have, and that Mr. Rogers has, HASC and SASC. These are tremendous people who work more hours than anybody could possibly calculate to make this happen. So I thank them very much for their hard work.

Again, Mr. Speaker, please, vote for this bill. It is enormously important that we do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Kerrie Hurd for her many years of public service and congratulate her on her retirement as the Director of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in Seattle District Office. Kerrie's strong leadership, relentless work ethic, and steadfast commitment to the SBA's mission embodies the highest ideals of public service.

During the pandemic when SBA COVID Relief programs disbursed funding to small businesses across the country, Kerrie worked to ensure no business was left behind. She advocated for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) policy changes so Washington's Tribal Fishers and other tribal- owned businesses could also benefit from the program. In addition, she drove efforts to identify and find local small businesses that were eligible for the SBA 8(a) program, helping small businesses grow with federal contracts. This included the strenuous process of reviewing industry association memberships and partnering with the state government. Her capabilities and dedication are also evident in her unprecedented accomplishment of organizing over $1.2 billion in SBA lending and willingness to work overtime to help small businesses be successful.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank and commend Kerrie Hurd for her service to the community. She is a great example of a public servant for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mary Ellen Stone for her many years of service for the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center (KCSARC) and congratulate her on her retirement as the Executive Director.

Mary Ellen has served as a steadfast advocate for survivors of sexual assault over the past 44 years throughout King County and Washington State. She has been a visionary leader in changing the landscape of sexual assault services including prevention, education, and victim advocacy. She was influential in establishing the state's first accreditation process for sexual assault providers, professionalizing service delivery and ensuring core services to be accessible; and publishing ``He Told Me Not to Tell,'' one of the first educational pieces in the nation for parents to talk with their children about sexual assault. As a result, KCSARC is nationally recognized for its effective and innovative services.

Mary Ellen has shared her time and expertise in many ways to better inform systems and communities about the needs of victims. This includes serving on the Seattle Archdiocese Review Board, Mental Illness Drug Dependence Oversight Board, Seattle Chief of Police Search committees, Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, Sex Offender Management Committee, Women's Funding Alliance, and Municipal League Seattle-King County. My staff and I have had the privilege of working with Mary Ellen on multiple occasions. Through her productive relationships with several elected officials, Mary Ellen has helped the KCSARC gain exposure at both the state and federal level. Her passion, tenacity and leadership have shaped KCSARC into the strong, vibrant nonprofit it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Mary Ellen Stone for her tireless work and contributions to the community, and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise to recognize Kathleen O'Brien Ham for her forty years of work in wireless telecommunications advocacy, and to congratulate her on her retirement as T-Mobile's Senior Vice President for Government Affairs.

Throughout her nearly 20 years with T-Mobile, Kathleen has been instrumental in leading the company's public policy practice. She was responsible for engaging federal and state governments and agencies to advance a wide range of priorities for T-Mobile, including radio spectrum and consumer safety matters.

Kathleen's fourteen years of prior experience at the Federal Communications Commission equipped her well for the landmark achievements she accomplished during her tenure at T-Mobile. Thanks to her unmatched focus on industry competition and doing more for consumers, T-Mobile became the first telecommunications provider to offer 5G network coverage in all 50 states, expanding wireless access for millions of Americans across the country.

From testifying before Congress to spearheading T-Mobile's efforts to secure additional spectrum, Kathleen laid the groundwork for the company's growth and innovation in recent years. Under her oversight, T-Mobile closed its merger with Sprint after a successful two-year policy and regulatory campaign, positioning T-Mobile as the country's leading 5G wireless provider and strengthening the company's competitiveness for years to come.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I thank Kathleen O'Brien Ham for her career helping T-Mobile thrive and subsequently doing more for American consumers, and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, if you support Ukraine, you cannot support this rule. My overarching concern here is for Ukraine. I mean, let's start with the fact that there is a Ukrainian supplemental that is needed to continue our support that the House Republicans are refusing to bring to the floor in any form, and they have given no indication whatsoever that they are going to bring that bill to the floor.

That is frustrating because we have had a number of votes on support for Ukraine, and it is very apparent that over 300 Members of this body support that, an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Yet, as of October 1, our ability to continue to support Ukraine also dies.

For all those Members on the other side of the aisle who support Ukraine, why are you letting that support die? Why aren't you insisting on moving forward with some kind of vote on the supplemental to help them?

Let's focus on this particular rule. What this rule does is it takes out the funding for Ukraine. If you support Ukraine, you can't vote for this rule because it undoes the vote that we did yesterday. It very publicly, for Putin and all the world to see, shows the U.S. House voting to cut the funding for Ukraine. That is what it does. The only reason it is here is because the people who don't support Ukraine want it to be here.

Now, tip of the hat to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz and all the other folks who don't support Ukraine, who seem sympathetic to Putin for reasons that I really don't want to think about, are forcing this vote to advance their interests, and that is fine.

However, for all the people who claim to support Ukraine on the other side of the aisle, how can they vote to take out the money that they voted in favor of yesterday? I share the chairman's mystification at what is going on here.

Now, I know there is a separate bill that will then fund Ukraine except that that separate bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It is not going anywhere. Also, the vote on the rule, the rule strips out the money from Ukraine. That is what it does. It undoes the vote from yesterday.

Believe me, the Russians are good at propaganda. I have seen this propaganda, and I guarantee you that what they will use and what a lot of our allies will wonder about, why did the United States House vote to strip the money away from Ukraine that it had voted for the day before? It will be played as America backing off of its commitment from Ukraine.

If you support Ukraine, you have to vote ``no.'' The people who don't support Ukraine are the ones who brought this motion. It is a free world. If you want to not support Ukraine, that is fine. Good for you for advancing this. However, the people who support Ukraine standing up here and voting for this? It is just unbelievable to me that we would undermine the support for Ukraine given how important that fight is.

We should support Ukraine. Please vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple quick points.

First of all, there is no legality issue here. This policy is clearly and unequivocally legal. As the quotes from the Hyde amendment said earlier, the Hyde amendment says that the government can't pay for an abortion or use their services for abortion.

The travel policy does not do either one of those things, so there is nothing illegal and nothing unconstitutional. This is a policy choice, and we have heard some very passionate arguments on both sides about what that policy choice should be.

Number one, let's put aside this ridiculous notion that this is illegal or unconstitutional. No. This is a perfectly legal policy that, on a policy ground, you disagree with.

Number two, in response to Chairman Rogers' comment about this being a new policy, it is not really a new policy in the following sense: It has always been the policy of the Department of Defense that if you cannot get the healthcare that you need where you are at, they will pay to take you to where you can.

Now, prior to the Dobbs decision, that was not an issue when it came to reproductive services. The Dobbs decision changed that. The Biden administration didn't support the Dobbs decision and didn't make that happen.

Once that happened, servicemembers in many, many States were no longer able to get the reproductive healthcare that they needed or wanted where they were, so, therefore, the travel policy that has been a long-time existing policy then applied. It applied to servicemembers seeking reproductive healthcare that couldn't get it in the State where they were.

This is not a change in policy, and it is not illegal. It is a policy choice. As a number of speakers have mentioned, it is an important policy choice on the very recruitment issue. It will be harder to recruit women if they are not protected.

I think the former Speaker made an outstanding argument for why it is really important. Even if you don't believe in abortion, you have a miscarriage, you need these services that you cannot get, this is crucial to recruitment.

The last point on this is we keep hearing the military is not popular anymore because of Biden's woke policies, which is ridiculous. To the extent that the military has gone down in credibility, it is because so many people are running around trashing our military saying they are excessively woke.

Our military is the best in the world. It is the best in the world today with those policies. Continuously undercutting and trashing our military as being weak and woke is hurting recruitment. I will grant you that. It is completely wrong, as are Senator Tuberville's efforts to gut the military's ability to do its job because he disagrees with the policy.

We had a vote on it. President Biden got elected. He made his decision. Change the policy. Don't trash the military.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Teresita Batayola for receiving lifetime achievement awards from the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO) and the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC).

Over the years, I have had the immense privilege of witnessing Teresita's tireless work to improve health outcomes for refugee, immigrant, and underserved communities in Washington's Ninth District and across the Puget Sound region. Teresita's career as the President and CEO of the International Community Health Services (ICHS) was remarkable. She helped transform ICHS from just 2 clinics into a growing regional health care network that continues to provide comprehensive care to over 27,000 patients.

Teresita's work went beyond just leading ICHS for 18 years. During her tenure at ICHS, she also took on leadership roles at the local and national level to help expand access to health care and other services for those that need it most. Her dedication to expanding health care access in Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities led her to serve on the AAPCHO's Board of Directors for well over a decade. Her years of steadfast leadership has been instrumental in advancing the resources and capacity of community health centers across the country, building a legacy that communities will continue to benefit from for decades to come. These lifetime achievement awards from AAPCHO and NACHC are a well-deserved testament to that legacy and to Teresita's exemplary service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Teresita for her visionary leadership, and I congratulate her on these achievements.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Three quick points here. First of all, it is interesting. You can go back to 2008 and look at John McCain's campaign and, entertainingly, Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential statements about how climate change was an existential threat, and this was a bipartisan issue where we talked about why this was a significant challenge that we needed to address.

Then, of course, Barack Obama had the audacity to get elected President and pursue that agenda, so suddenly it became political.

I just want to make this very, very clear. The belief here is that digging up fossil fuels from below the ground and burning them is bad for life, it is bad for the planet, and it will eventually exterminate the planet.

Now, if you want to disagree with that, you want to have a little argument about whether or not that is true, we can. I mean, the overwhelming majority of scientists seem to agree with that, but let's hear the argument. It just kills me to sit here and listen to the other side claim that this is a political agenda.

Now, I understand why they do that, because that skips past the messy part of where you have to actually argue the facts and you can just dismiss it as politics and everyone robotically goes: Oh, yes, politics, that is bad. We can't have that.

If we can have an actual discussion about this, if you believe, as the administration does and as, again, I don't know, 80 percent of the scientists believe, that climate change could destroy the fricking planet, then it is worth saying that that's a national security threat at least equivalent to China.

Yes, there is the possibility of global nuclear war with China that could exterminate the planet, but climate change, the argument is, would exterminate the planet, so I think that is worth thinking about.

Please believe me when I say this is not a political agenda. It is a heartfelt belief that we have a distinct problem here that needs to be addressed.

Second: How to address it. Come up with alternative sources of energy and make those investments. This is also very important, because even if this wasn't destroying the planet, our dependency upon oil has been problematic.

I know there is this fantasy that we are going to become energy independent. Nobody is energy independent. Oil is a global marketplace. Even if we generate enough energy, we sell it overseas, and Saudi Arabia and OPEC therefore have an enormous amount of control over that market.

As I have said over and over again, the true answer to this problem is, when gas prices go up, wouldn't it be great to say: That is wonderful, but we don't need that, we have other sources of energy to go to. Nothing is more important in the military than energy and access to it. Wars are started over having access to the energy that you need. To say that this doesn't involve national security literally hurts my brain. You need these alternatives.

The last argument is on the market: We will let the market decide. The market subsidized the living hell out of the oil industry for 175 years. They have an enormous advantage. The pipelines, the system, the entire thing that was built, was built on our taxpayer dollars. Now, what we are saying is if we are going to develop an alternative to that, then we are going to have to help that, as we helped nuclear energy, and a whole of bunch other different things.

I don't think I hear the other side complaining about the government subsidizing nuclear energy because that fits within their politics.

If I ask nothing else, could we please just have a rational discussion that understands that this is a legitimate policy issue? It isn't a fetish. It isn't a political debate. It is the fate of the planet and how we manage energy policy, both of which--I am going to take a real bold step here--actually impact national security. I believe that they do, and I believe that anybody would agree with that statement.

Please, defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just note that we actually are making investments in nuclear power. It is really expensive and difficult to develop, but the investments are being made. That is part of the agenda.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I will have remarks in a moment while, regrettably, I am not supporting this particular bill. That doesn't change how much respect I have for the process and for all the people who participated in that process. I want to make sure we understand that.

One of the things I always say, I believe in democracy more than I believe in my own opinion, which means that the process is important and the way we put that process together and that we move through it.

In particular, I definitely thank the staff, certainly our staff on the House Armed Services Committee that has done an outstanding job, the Rules Committee staff, as well, but also the floor staff and the parliamentarians and the folks who have to put the amendments together and put the legislation together.

Throughout this process from the very start, when the original bill was introduced, to all of the amendments, we have to run through these numbers, it is in the thousands, basically, of amendments and ideas that are submitted.

From the moment we put together the initial bill, we amend it in committee, they deal with Rules, they amend it on the floor--we are talking literally thousands of different pieces of legislation and ideas that have to be brought together. Members don't do any of that.

We spout out ideas, and a whole bunch of staff work really hard to get that done. I thank them very, very much for all of that work to make this process go forward.

Mr. Chair, it is a good, robust bipartisan approach. We have the amendments, we have the debates, and we resolve it. One thing I will make clear, I am not thrilled with the outcome of the Rules Committee, but that is the nature of being in the minority.

When you are in the majority, the Rules Committee does what the Rules Committee does, and the minority complains about it. That is the way this place works. That is fine. I might have done it differently in terms of trying to figure out how to pass the bill.

At the end of the day, I don't have any process objection here. The amendments were put on the floor, and they passed. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the outcome, and I will explain that later.

Mr. Chair, I will take a moment to really make it clear how much I thank all the people who put this process together, in particular, I thank Chairman Rogers for his work.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chair, it is not as easy as it looks. Let me just sum that up. There are a whole lot of things you have to manage, including the minority part. Chairman Rogers has done an outstanding job of doing that in his first year as chair, and I appreciate that and I respect that. I thank everybody for the process they put together.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, who summed it up reasonably well, but I really want to make sure people understand why we are opposed to this bill.

We are opposed to this bill because it is our firm belief that this will undermine our ability to meet the national security objectives of this country.

I want to explain why. We can start with the issue of access to reproductive healthcare for women.

Because of the Dobbs decision, there are many States now across this country where you cannot get access to that care. The Department of Defense, faced with that and having a large number of women and family members of servicemembers in those States, set up a situation to allow those women to get access to that reproductive care. This bill takes that away.

Mr. Chair, if you are a woman concerned about your ability to get an abortion, first of all, or concerned about if you are a servicemember who has a family member who might be concerned about that, you are going to be less likely to join the military.

I really do want to emphasize one point that came up during this. I understand a lot of people oppose abortion. They want to ban it outright, and that is why they feel this way. However, do understand the negative impact that that will have on a lot of women's willingness to join the military.

It goes beyond abortion, as we have sadly seen. The worst case of this is a woman who miscarries midway through her pregnancy cannot get treated for that. There was one particular case that was cited during the debate of a woman who wound up in the emergency room fighting for her life because of an infection because she could not get that care.

If you are a woman, Mr. Chair, or if you are a man who is considering, ``What about my spouse, and what about my children?'' then you will be less likely to join the military knowing that you have that challenge. So, we are going to have fewer qualified people willing to join the military because of what was passed. That will not make our military stronger.

We have also now said, and the debate seems to imply, that trans people don't exist so they are not welcome in the military either. Now, I am not a doctor and, therefore, don't want to presume what treatment someone should have who is in a transgender situation, but what this bill says is: Nope, we are not even going to consider it.

Again, Mr. Chair, if you are a trans person, you are going to be less likely to join the military, or, Mr. Chair, if you are someone who thinks, ``What if I have a child who is a trans person?'' The military is not going to accept them. So, now, Mr. Chair, you can take trans people off the table. They are not going to join the military either.

Then, we have the most difficult aspect of this, and that is the diversity, equity, and inclusion piece. This is a very widely misunderstood thing, and I tried to explain it throughout the debate.

Believe it or not, we have a history of discrimination in this country. We have a history of bigotry. You can go through slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and a whole bunch of different things, Mr. Chair. We also have a history of incredible discrimination against women.

I cited this before, but as it came out during debate, women who join the military, I think, have a very strong understanding that they are going to have to work twice as hard, basically, to get the same opportunities that a man gets in the military. That is sort of understood.

Because of that historical discrimination, Mr. Chair, you also have to wonder, if you are a person of color, whether you are going to get a fair shake in the military.

Now, I will admit there are a lot of people who, even faced with those odds, even knowing that they are going to have to work twice as hard and face that discrimination, will join, but some will not. So, again, there is another group of people who we have now taken off the table.

I want to take a special moment to recognize, on that last point, the willingness of people to join the military even if they are facing discrimination.

Where I live in the Seattle-Bellevue area, we have a lot of Nisei veterans and family of Nisei veterans, and it is a particularly compelling story. These are Japanese Americans who fought and died, in many cases, for our country during World War II while their family members were unfairly incarcerated back home.

I know that there are people who will step up and take on that challenge anyway, but there will be fewer of them.

Basically, Mr. Chair, you have this huge group of people now who are going to be less likely to join the military because of what this bill does.

I will slightly paraphrase a line from ``A Few Good Men.'' Basically, all this bill does is weakens our country. It weakens our ability to respect all the people who should be allowed not just to serve but to serve with an equal chance of advancement. Whether you

are talking about women, whether you are talking about trans people, whether you are talking about people of color, Mr. Chair, this bill says that we are going to make it more difficult for you to get a fair shake in the military.

I do understand the DEI argument, but let me just say two things about that as I bring this to a close.

First of all, there were a lot of very disturbing arguments made. I think the base renaming commission argument, even though technically it really didn't matter, was the most disturbing of all as we, once again, heard all these speeches about how we need to honor our history and honor our heritage.

These are the exact same arguments that were made over 100 years ago when this country went through a very concerted effort to make sure that we could establish white supremacy as the law of the land. The very same arguments that erected these monuments and named these bases and gave us the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow were made on the floor of this House.

It is shocking that those arguments were made. It is appalling that those arguments carried the day and actually won on all of these amendments and found themselves inserted in the bill. All of that is very concerning.

I do understand that there is a different set of arguments and a very respectable set of arguments that says that the way we are attempting to address the historical discrimination of this country is problematic, and that is primarily critical race theory.

There are certainly some in this country who have a view of this that our country is nothing but racist and that basically we have heard--I think Mike Waltz actually read this out in committee, and it is very accurate: There are some who believe that all White people are racist, that if you are a White person, you are by definition an oppressor, and you need to think about that.

I have seen that, and I have witnessed that, and it is wrong. In my opinion, it is not the correct way to approach that. How should we handle that? The way we have chosen to handle that is to get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion completely and totally, and that is the problem.

Mr. Chair, if you wanted to say that we are not going to do that part of it, fine. That is not what we did.

To the argument of, ``Well, gee, all that does is makes it fair. We shouldn't consider race. We shouldn't consider any of these things in determining excellence,'' the problem is that for 400 years we did, and at the end of that, one particular group of people got all the advantages.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this bill, but I do thank the people for the process that was put in place.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, it is one of the great myths of this situation that we don't have a mission.

The Biden administration has laid out a very, very clear plan, as I said at the outset, and that plan is to do everything we can to help preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine without going to war with Russia. That is the administration's plan, and they have made it clear over and over and over again.

There are a lot of different people that have different opinions. This amendment does not ask for Joe Wilson's plan. This amendment asks for the White House--the administration's plan, which we already have. If you want to get Joe's plan, he is sitting right there, and I suggest you ask him.

The administration has a very clear mission. That mission doesn't have anything to do with regime change or trying Vladimir Putin. These are all things to discuss. The mission in this conflict and the reason we are supporting Ukraine is to preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine, which means helping them take back as much of their territory that they can. How much they can take back is hard to say.

We are supporting them and because we supported them, there is a sovereign democratic Ukraine. We are also at the same time having conversations with Ukraine and trying to have conversations with Russia about getting to the peace table. Right now Vladimir Putin isn't willing to do that. He wants to destroy Ukraine. We are helping Ukraine protect themselves. The mission is clear.

Using this excuse of a report to cut off the funds for the mission is not the right approach. You can disagree with the mission if you want. I understand that. It is a democracy, and we can have that conversation, but let's please stop saying that there isn't clarity.

There is absolute clarity. President Biden, Jake Sullivan, Chairman Milley, and Secretary Austin have said over and over and over again that we are helping Ukraine defend itself so we can preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine and stop Russia from wiping them off the map. That is the mission.

Thus far, it has been successful. We want to help them retake more territory.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, we haven't actually used the lend-lease provision yet, so there is nothing to exercise oversight on. It is not clear whether or not it will be used.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address the larger issue which has been raised, and that is the idea that there is a lack of accountability for the funds going to Ukraine. Number one, that is a big Russian-Putin propaganda talking point; and, two, completely wrong. It has been investigated by the IG and a bunch of other folks and determined that that is not happening.

These weapons are going precisely where they are supposed to be going. We know this because if they weren't, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago. They are under attack from a military roughly five times the size of theirs that is much more well-armed and much more well- equipped.

In order to defend themselves, they have to effectively use the support that the United States, and again, 53 other nations are providing to them. They have been effectively using that, which is how they have been able to retake some of the territory that Russia took from them a year and a half ago and protect the rest of the country that Putin was trying to take.

Let's not buy into this myth that somehow this money is being wasted and is not proper oversight. There is a legitimate argument to be had about what you feel about the importance of Ukraine, but it is not based on this money being wasted.

The money has been incredibly effectively used. That is why Ukraine has been able to defend itself. Again, I believe we should help Ukraine defend itself, which is what we are doing. As with all the other amendments along these lines, I urge opposition to this one.

Mr. Chair, I want to answer the most important question: What does this have to do with national security? It has to do with unit cohesion and with recruitment.

Interestingly, the survey data shows that almost three times as many people say they are worried about joining the military because of their concerns about discrimination as say that they are worried about the military being too woke.

That is the point of this. The training is to make sure there is unit cohesion, number one, and number two, that we can recruit from the entire country.

It really comes down to whether or not you believe that we have a history of discrimination against people of color, the LGBTQ community, and women.

If you think that that just didn't happen and we don't have to worry about it, then I guess this approach makes sense, but the history of our country tells a very different story.

We need to address this in order to make sure that if you are a woman, if you are a Black person, if you are trans or gay, the military is going to give you a fair shake.

Let me remind everybody here. Just 13 years ago, we finally allowed gay people to serve in the military. Every single Republican voted against that. Every single one.

Do we really think that our national security would be stronger if we drove all the gay people out of the military? We need all the resources, all the talents from this country, and regrettably, we haven't always done that. In what is shown, we need to address these issues.

Now, the Republicans exaggerate this. They act like this is all we do in recruitment. I have spent a lot of time with a lot of military people. This is not all we do in training the military. It is something that needs to be done to meet our recruitment goals.

Mr. Chair, what this amendment before us says, it says you cannot teach that the Constitution is a racist document.

As Mrs. McClellan pointed out, the Constitution says that Black people are three-fifths of a person. The problem here is that we are not allowing with this amendment to have an honest discussion. Within the military, within society as a whole, you can't have a functioning unit, a functioning institution if you don't understand this history properly.

This amendment requires us to literally whitewash history. If you are a Black person thinking about serving in the military, and you know that is the military you are walking into, you are going to be worried about it.

What DEI does is it gives an opportunity to assure people that they will be treated equally, assurance that they are needed precisely because of amendments like this.

Our country has a rich and complicated history. A lot of it is very good, but we need to be honest about what it is if we are going to recruit from the diverse population that we need to recruit from.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to me that the Republican majority doesn't understand what diversity, equity, and inclusion is, so I am going to attempt to explain it this way.

We need to be intentional in recruiting from populations that have been historically discriminated against.

I will use myself as an example. I grew up in a neighborhood that was 95 percent White. My friends were White. My family was White. I moved into a responsible position. I started to hire people.

Typically, you either hire people you know, or you hire people who you know know. That is where you get it. I looked around, and I was hiring a bunch of White people, all right. That is who I knew.

What I did is I affirmatively reached out to groups that worked with Black people or Hispanic people or gay people. When I had openings, I said, okay, who have you got? I don't have those relationships, and I built those relationships.

That is what diversity, equity and inclusion is, and it is sorely needed in a country that at least until about 30 or 40 years ago was really racist, okay.

To correct that, we have to work with communities, diverse communities, to make sure that we recruit the people diversely.

We are not missing our recruitment goals because we are trying to expand the people we are recruiting.

We are missing our recruitment goals primarily because of COVID, and also, by the way, because a lot of Republicans are running around talking about how terribly weak our military is. If they would stop spreading that message, maybe people would believe in our military and join.

That is what DEI is. Eliminating it is a huge mistake.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

I think it is important to point out in this amendment that our allies have very much stepped up in the war in Ukraine. This was about a week ago now. The stats may be a little bit different. The United States actually ranks 13th in terms of percentage of GDP that we have committed to help Ukraine. That means of our 53 partners, 12 others have been doing more than we have.

My biggest concern about this amendment is twofold. One, it undermines that level of support and seems to imply that our allies are not doing that. Second, along with several other amendments here, it can be interpreted as being anti-NATO. I am worried more about the other amendments than I am worried about this one, but make no mistake about it, the NATO alliance has served the United States' interests very, very well for its--quick math off the top of my head--roughly 75- plus years of existence, and we should not be undermining that.

This particular amendment, not as problematic, but the idea that our allies are not contributing or the idea that the U.S. doesn't benefit from our contribution, I think, is mistaken, based on our place in the world.

Right now, as we look to confront Russia and China, nothing is more important than our allies and partners. We need to work with them to build the coalition that is going to be able to stand up for a rules- based international order and for the peaceful resolution of our differences. I do not wish to undermine those alliances, and I hope we do remember the contributions of our allies.

That is basically all I have to say about this. I don't think I have any speakers.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this is part of a troubling battle that we have frequently on the Armed Services Committee.

As the military, whether it is the Air Force or some other branch, is trying to move forward, they discontinue different programs. There are always people who like those programs, and we step in and block it and make it difficult for the military to make the decisions they need to make.

At this particular moment in history, this is enormously important, because innovation, new weapons technology, is absolutely crucial. Our information systems, just to give one example, are not where they need to be in order to manage all of the information that is now flowing, make sure that it is protected, and it gets to who needs to get it in real time.

We need to upgrade all of those systems. We need to improve our unmanned systems, drones, develop counter-drone technology, missiles, and counter-missile technology. All of that is dependent upon new, innovative technologies that we need to adopt and implement.

That costs money if we can't discontinue previous programs. We have held onto many, many programs way

past the point at which they are actually useful, because it impacted somebody's district somewhere. That is always going to be the case. I am basically opposed to us stepping in and blocking these things and tying the hands of the military to upgrade and innovate in the way that they need. I am in opposition to this.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to explain something just quickly. I am going to yield to Ms. Frankel in a minute. She is not going to talk about this. She is going to talk about something else. For everyone's information, she can do that. Basically, it is your time and you can talk about whatever you want. I think you can stand up and mumble gibberish for 2 minutes if you are so inclined. You have 2 minutes do it, it is their time, not related to this, but it is still a perfectly lawful way to handle this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is my favorite amendment. It sort of drives home the point.

When we talk about history, you have to understand the history of how these bases were named. We had the Civil War. We got rid of slavery. We tried Reconstruction. Reconstruction did not go well.

Then there was a concerted movement in this country to make sure that we continued to establish white supremacy as the way we were going to approach this country. A lot of fascinating books have actually been written about this. It was a very well-coordinated effort.

There was an effort to rename all these bases after people from the Confederate war to celebrate white supremacy. The Ku Klux Klan grew up all over the place. I can't remember the name of the guy, but a guy from my area just wrote a fascinating book about the Ku Klux Klan taking over the State of Indiana and the battle and fight that went into that.

All of these bases that are named for our history, as you describe it, are monuments to white supremacy. If you don't support white supremacy, or if, God forbid, you are Black and not White, and you are going to serve at a base that is a monument, historically

it is exactly why it was named that. It was named that as part of an overall concerted effort to establish white supremacy. But we are just going to let that go.

That is the kind of thing that undermines good order and discipline in the military. This is the kind of thing that makes people who aren't White feel like they are not included.

I do not believe for 1 second that the United States of America is an essentially racist country or that white supremacy is currently the policy that we are trying to advance. What I cannot understand is why so many people serving in this body don't want to stand up for that basic principle and want to continue to celebrate the worst parts of our history instead of the best parts.

These monuments are supposed to reflect our values. This is not a value we should be reflecting. Oh, by the way, this is why we still need diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, to try to educate people on these very fundamental facts that they ought to know.

Please, if you supported all the others, please oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I actually agree with what the gentleman has listed in terms of what this great country has done.

What is beyond belief is why in the name of God would we choose to celebrate the particular aspects of our history that don't reflect those values that the gentleman just explained.

I want to talk about all the great things that the United States of America has done. I don't want to talk about our history of white supremacy. I want to understand it and make sure that we don't ever repeat it.

I have an enormous amount of respect for the chairman of the committee, but I want to make sure everyone understands what we are voting on here. This is to prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out the recommendations of the base naming commission.

So to say, ``They are done. It doesn't really matter. This is going to block what they did. This is going to stop the ability to change those names,'' this commission was passed on a bipartisan basis to make sure that this is implemented. This amendment would gut that and go against that bipartisan agreement and the work that they have done.

Please understand what you are doing. As I said earlier, it is something we should not be doing.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I can't say it any better than my colleague said it, so I will primarily associate myself with her remarks.

The bottom line is, we have interests in Afghanistan. She mentioned a lot of the humanitarian interests. There are also national security interests. ISIS is present in Afghanistan. We have considerable concern about what they might do in terms of posing a transnational threat. We have taken strikes against there.

There are many conceivable situations where we might need to work with Afghanistan in focusing on this issue, on humanitarian needs or national security needs. If it requires Congress to do it, it ties the hands of the President to basically be able to implement the policies that we will need to protect our interests. There is no need to have this requirement.

Mr. Chair, I join my colleague in urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, let's be clear. There is no money in the authorizing bill for Afghanistan, so the gentleman's worries are misplaced. In fact, if he wasn't bringing up this amendment, we wouldn't even be talking about it. So that last little bit there was completely wrong, totally confusing, some big, impassioned plea about how dare we pass an authorizing act that funds the Taliban.

I assure all Members there is no money in this bill for funding the Taliban. This amendment has got nothing to do with the authorizing bill. It goes way beyond that. We are not doing what the sponsor of this amendment just said we are doing.

I don't know. Maybe he wishes to withdraw the amendment at this point since it is pointless to his argument, but I just want to be clear to the Members who will have to vote on this, it is not in the bill. This amendment has nothing to do with that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, this prohibits the President from funding anything, including all of that other stuff, so it goes beyond what is in the bill. He implied that in the bill we are funding this. The executive branch is a different thing. His amendment would prohibit the administration from doing anything. That is the objection to it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the point of all this is whether or not sustainability should be an objective that we work toward in our building materials. What this amendment does is it undermines the ability to get to that goal of sustainability.

Now, sustainability can mean a lot of different things. Mr. Rogers focused on the aspect of how timber can be used. There is an aspect of sustainability that focuses on whether or not what you are building will enable us to sustain the planet. It is sort of widely accepted that the way we are using carbon-emitting--all kinds of different issues--is jeopardizing the health of the planet long term. That is something that we ought to think about and we ought to be concerned about.

If this amendment passes, you are putting your thumb on the scale in a different way, saying the sustainability isn't important, you are going to focus on other issues.

Actually, Mr. Garamendi is very good on other issues. As the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, he always pointed out: Don't look at the upfront cost. Look at the sustainability costs.

What does it cost to maintain what you are doing? What is the long- term cost going to be?

The market may be very good at figuring out what is going to be cheapest right now today in this second, but then we pay over the long term.

This amendment basically guts our ability to contemplate that long term, to contemplate what sustainability would look like and what those long-term costs are.

It is good to be on the same side as the chairman on an amendment. I am with him. We should reject this amendment. Please vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I really would just associate myself with Chairman Rogers' remarks. These technologies are crucially important to developing the capabilities that we need to be able to compete with China, deter our adversaries, and have a strong military.

I understand that there are controversial decisions that are made; what is the right technology going forward? We will never be perfect about this. We have gone through this in DOD in many instances.

Gosh, we spent a lot of money on the F-35 that didn't quite work out. We spent a lot of money on a lot of different programs that didn't work out perfectly.

Targeting electric, solar, new green energy I realize is being done because of the politics around it, but I would hope that we could put aside those political debates on that to recognize the crucial need that we have for these technologies in the military.

If the gentleman's amendment passes, I guess we would have to take down the satellites. I mean, how is this going to work, exactly? This is a really, really bad idea, and I hope we will vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

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

The gentleman's amendment requires the DOD to generate a report and provide all documentation to Congress on the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, the attack at Abbey Gate, in coordination with State, provide the number and immigration status of those evacuated from Afghanistan, and U.S. support or interference with nongovernmental groups assisting with the evacuation.

There is nothing particularly narrowly crafted about this. It is very broad. The larger problem, this is all information, as Mr. Crow indicated, that has been turned over repeatedly to multiple different commissions and multiple different entities.

I do not doubt that the families still have questions. To the extent they have questions, we should try to answer them. Those questions are not going to be answered in the documentation that the gentleman is asking for, and I know this because these documents have already been turned over, already been made available; and as the gentleman just said, the families still have questions. I completely respect that. We should find ways to answer those questions.

This amendment isn't going to do that. It is not going to answer those questions. It is simply asking for documentation that has already been provided in multiple forums. I will grant you that it depends on the forum, but we have got the inspector general. Mr. Crow went through the list of all the different people who have seen this.

And remember, right now, the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is not being remotely shy about pursuing this information, is leading an investigation on precisely that issue. Therefore, this is duplicative and will not answer the questions that the gentleman just raised, so I don't support this amendment. I agree with Mr. Crow that there is no apparent purpose for it. This information has been provided, and if we pass this amendment, it implies that it hasn't. That is wrong, dishonest, and we shouldn't do it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds. The weight of law is important if the information hasn't been turned over. That is what the weight of law does. It compels them to do it.

Again, I will emphasize, the answers that the gentleman seeks--and I applaud you for having those conversations with the victims. I hope you can answer those questions. I hope somebody can, but this amendment does not advance that conversation at all.

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman has had some time to talk about this very important issue, but the amendment is simply seeking information that has already been provided.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

As far as the opportunity to have it again, as I understand it, that subcommittee on Foreign Affairs is still going. They are very, very far from done, so those questions have a very obvious forum and multiple other forums in which to continue to answer those questions.

Again, this amendment implies the Department of Defense is withholding something. They are not.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Crow.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland).

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

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI is, and there are certainly examples and there are many anecdotes of bad DEI, of DEI that goes too far in the opposite direction, as has been described over and over and over again.

But the basic idea that we need to make sure that our military is inclusive and focus on diversity and equity, as we have argued throughout the day today is inarguable.

There is a history of racism. There is a history of sexism. There is a history of bigotry.

As was pointed out, we wouldn't even allow trans or gay people to serve in many instances. Now that we have allowed Black people to serve in the military, they are not getting promoted at the same level.

If we are going to recruit from the diverse population that we have in this country, we have to at least focus on it. If folks want to focus on some minor bad aspect of it, we can talk about that, but what you are doing is you are completely eliminating like 10 times--talk about shooting a dead horse. We have now shot this thing like 15 times in the course of the day. You are completely eliminating any consideration of this Nation's history and how we are going to recruit and retain members of the military.

These amendments are terrible ideas for the national security of this country, and I, once again, urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.