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

that's the wrong approach. and so just fundamentally this is a difference in policy, it's a difference in goal, apparently it's a difference in assessment of what mirks military strong and will continue to make it strong. so for those reasons, i have to strongly oppose this amendment. i yield -- i'm sorry, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: this is more liberal gibberish. $1.4 billion.

tell these young people behind me, you tell them instead of building ships, instead of building airplanes, instead of protecting cyber security, you're going to really pay for transgender operations? hogwash. you try to make that case to anybody in this room. and they would laugh -- it's so serious they wouldn't laugh. let me tell you other things i'm sick and tired of. feelings. talk to the military gold star mothers who have lost their children. tell them what you just said on this house floor. . a book that teaches remedy to past discrimination. another one, military recruitment videos in recent years have touted the military's inclusioncy ofity to lgbt members. they use a rainbow flag. enough is enough.

americans are tired of this. why do you think the shortage of people entering the military can put up with this kind of thinking? for this reason -- we shouldn't even be wasting our time debating this thing. but it is what it is. thanks to the biden administration and their anti-military and anti-readiness, it's a time in america that we are in severe danger economically and security wise. i reserve. the chair: jere -- the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. obviously we have a difference of opinion here. i would also submit that the leadership of our military have a difference of opinion with the perspectives expressed by the offerer of this amendment. again, they understand the value

of pursuing a he diverse -- a diverse equitable, equal, and diverse military. they understand the challenges of a military that is not representative of the american people. they understand the need to provide for that investment. again, we can oversee this particular effort. we can question particular representations of that policy. but to take a blunt instrument to this entire effort and defund it and say that it has no value at all, that's what's objectionable in this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to considered am numbered 169 printed in part

a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 169, printed in part a of house report number 118-216, offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: thank you, mr. speaker. again like the other amendment i had, i cannot believe we are sitting here debating this. but what my amendment does is prohibits provisions of gender transition procedures, including surgery or medication, through the exceptional family member program. let me tell you what the exceptional family member program is. it provides resources to military families with special needs.

this program is designed for military spouses, children, and other dependent family members who require ongoing medical or educational services such as individuals with autism. asthma, chronic respiratory illnesses, down syndrome. and many others. the military has tried to politicize this matter. my amendment ensures that we reserve the valuable programs and dollars for these programs which would go toward the intent of what it was put in the first place, which is to help families with special needs. and prevent the further disillusioned and misguided dollars spent on something like gender transition procedures. it also -- my amendment also prohibits the change of duty station simply for the purpose of providing a child with easier access to these procedures.

i urge the adoption of this. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii rise? mr. case: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. again we have an amendment that would want us, apparently, to occupy some other state of reality. as opposed to the world as we have it today. in that world we do have, transgender individuals who need help, children whose parents are looking for the right courses of conduct for them. and this measure would say that those parents do not have the rights to make those decisions in consultation with their doctors and with their children. and further what this amendment says is that those parents need not apply to join our military

because they will not be welcomed there with the decisions that they need to make for their families. this amendment that cuts gender affirming care options for service members' children would drive individuals out of the military, prevent recruitment to start with, and is frankly needlessly cruel. these decisions should be reserved to parents and their children. i hear all the time from the other side of the aisle talking about parents' rights. all the time. parents should have the right to make these decisions. is there an exception for military families? parents get to make these decisions, by the way if you are a member of our military you don't get to make these decisions. this is a very personal decision for parents to make with their families. with their children, and with their doctors. it's probably in all honesty unconstitutional as courts believe health care bans like this violate the equal

protection clause of the constitution. let's leave that aside and talk about the policy. is the policy wise to say to service members and their families that they cannot access care that is provided to them in a nonservice member world? i think that's the wrong policy. i oppose this amendment. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: well, let me tell you the dollar amount spent for the past five years. $15 million. $15 million for surgery for a man who can't decide whether he's a man. or a girl who can't decide she's a girl. imagine that. if you tell those families that have children with down continue some -- down syndrome, you tell those families that have severely autistic children, you going to spend it to changing genders? i don't mind somebody if they

question the gender. but pay for it yourself. not on the backs of our brave military families. in the past five years, it was spent the $15 million was spent to treat 1,892 transgender troops. isn't that something. you want somebody trying to decide if they are a man or woman on the firing line? that's really a question to decide in the military. 11.5 million was spent for psycho therapy. and 3.1 million for surgeries. the price tag for individuals getting this surgery and treatments after have ranged from $8,000 to $100,000. related health care coverage is only going up. my point is, i think to make this argument, particularly with

dollars that could be spent -- helping meaningful children who have disabilities, is -- should be made. to spend this money that we don't have just really spitz in the face of our military families. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. first of all we can certainly debate on the efficient use of our funds for expenses and costs. i strongly suspect my colleagues' objections on this amendment do not relate to cost but to a judgment about what should and shouldn't be provided to our military families. we can have this debate about transgender care for our military service members. the debate will look something like this one. but this particular amendment would ban any care for minor children. what this amendment would do is to say to our military service

members, you cannot have the full range of medical -- recognized medical options for your children that are available in a nonmilitary setting. that's what this amendment would do. this is about children. it's about parents making decisions for their children. and this is a situation where that decision should be left to the service member parents who have a choice as to whether they serve in the military or not. have a choice whether to join the military or not. or stay in the military. we should provide to them the same basic rights and options as are available in the private sector. otherwise aside from not being fair to them, in my estimation, we also would not have a strong military because they'll choose not to join. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: how much time do i have? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. norman: i just say that it's this kind of thinking that's got the military in a demoralized state. it's this kind of thinking, this kind of rationalization of our hard-earned tax money that's got the military recruitment numbers way down. it's this kind of woke thinking that is penalizing families that want to serve this country by families who have children with these disabilities, who need the care, that they would deprive from getting the care because they want to fund somebody who doesn't know what gender they are. it's this kind of thinking that america's sick and tired of. and ask any military family and they would tell you the same thing. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the agreement is agreed to.

it is now in order to considered consider amendment number 170, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: amendment number 170, printed in part a of house report 118-216. offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house res. 723, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and a

member eoh posed -- member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman fromtown t mr. ogles: the section 1260-h list maintained by the department of defense was created by the fiscal year 2021 national defense authorization act. intended to identify any chinese military companies operating directly or indirectly in the united states. section 1260-h is a part of a largely bipartisan years-long effort to name and shame ccp companies operating in our nation. while the biden administration has made important additions to this list, including military companies such as kim china, and china state construction company, the administration has still fallen short of a full commitment to countering the maligned influences of the c.c.p. earlier this year we saw

secretaries yellen, blinken, and row mannedo take trips to china as part of a diplomatic overture. many of my colleagues would undoubtedly agree that the c.c.p. could careless about diplomacy and that these trips have very little if any bearing on how china chooses to behave on the international stage. one could argue that these trips only serve to demonstrate the limits and lack of american resolve to confront the p.r.c.'s obviously petulant behavior. for instance, it is a daily occurrence to see the p.r.c. infringe on taiwan's air defense identification zone. the p.r.c. regularly makes threats to wage war against taiwan. . they entran developing countries into contracts that make them at the facto vessel states. they construct duel use ports across the -- dual use ports across the world and it goes on and on and on, mr. chairman.

in the face of the c.c.p.'s belligerent escalatory actions, the gut reaction of the american administration ought not to be for the secretary of the treasury to fly to china, consume psychedelic mushrooms and yet that's what he saw from janet yellen. before secretary raimondo's visit to china, the secretary of commerce, acting through the bureau of industry and security, unilaterally removed 27c.c.p. entities from the bureau's so-called unverified list. our department of commerce literally chose to make a concession to an aggressive state in order to get the c.c.p. to meet with our commerce secretary. it is clear that this president's judgment cannot be trusted. this administration's assessment of china has only emboldened our nation's foremost enemy. appeasement has long failed as a strategy and it continues to fail today. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. does anyone claim time? in opposition? mr. ogles: mr. chairman, i ask adoption of my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 171 printed in part a of house report 118-216.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 171. printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. it would appear that many in the democratic party have taken it upon themselves to offer their talents and considerable abilities to help determine which information is reliable and which isn't. but no thanks to mr. chairman, in september, 2021, the department of defense offered news guard a self-proclaimed fact checker a $750,000 grant to effectively censor conservative viewpoints and opinions.

want the proof of newsguard's censorship efforts? i'm more than happy to provide undisputed facts. newsguard has given extremely subjective and clearly biased ratings to several conservative news outlets, including the federalist, a 12.5% accuracy and screbility score -- credibility score. and o.a.n., 17.5%. i'm sure these conservative news outlets have lost out on crucial ad revenue from these ratings. it's censorship. it is fundamentally pathetic that this administration thinks they can sideline conservative viewpoints and demonize conservative platforms without the american people finding out about this. all this is happening while "politico," n.p.r., "the new york times" have previously received a perfect 100%.

cbs, 95%. mr. chairman, we're supposed to have an open and free press. there should be no censorship. this is the united states of america. and the fact that we are funding an organization that is censoring viewpoints and news is untenable. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you. newsguard is a service that provides tools to counter misinformation and has been around since 2018. used as tools to catalog and track all of the top false narratives spreading online. which is an effective and -- in encountering hostile misinformation targeting democratic governments like our own. there's no doubt that china, russia and iran and other bad

actors are trying to influence our country through its mis, dis and malinformation. we need every tool available to determine what's real and what's not and what comes to -- when it comes to being reported by the press. the amendment does nothing to weaken our ability to do that. so i oppose this amendment and at this point in time i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it should be noted that newsmax tv is more than just online. cbs isn't just online. "the new york times" isn't just online. these are news outlets with multiple platforms. so it's not about censoring online, it's about censorship. the irony here is abundant. especially when considering that these leftist news outlets par ottawaed the lie promoted by -- parroted the lie promoted by intelligence officials and the disastrous secretary of state that the hunter biden laptop story was a production of

russian disinformation. only in america could a guy who helped steal an election and undermined our democracy be promoted to oversee our nation's policy on ukraine but that's the story of anthony blinken in a nut shell. the hunter biden laptop debacle was literally the biggest story of the 2020 election and a story, if taken seriously, might have resulted in a different outcome. instead, our government is subsidizing a self-identified fact checker who completely whiffed on the biggest story of a presidential cycle. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: thank you. just a few facts about newsguard. journalists are employed by newsguard. they have technology people that score websites based on their reliability and general trustworthiness. it's not censored. people still have the freedom to read, to believe whatever they choose to.

but this analysis is designed to be transparent. and it also includes the name of the staffer who analyzed this. if somebody has a dispute with it, they know exactly who made the score system happen. let me just kind of a couple of things, mr. chair, what they do. they look at the frequency, the frequency of publication that has inaccurate information. the extent of sourcing and original reporting on information. the degree of demarcation between news and opinion journalists. you know, this is something that, mr. chair, that i attended both public and private grade schools and colleges and i remember the good sisters saying, you're entitled to your own opinion, it should be said so respectfully, but you're not entitled to your own facts. so one of the things that they try to do is figure out, what is hard news and what is somebody's opinion?

and we're entitled to read people's opinions, but when opinions somehow get inner woven that they are fact, it becomes very confusing for people. what newsguard tries to do is help separate that out. the accuracy of headlines, including those that are baitclick headlines, and the degree of disclosure of the website's owner. so if you're reading something and you want to know when -- who owns it, is it owned by your next door neighbor, is it owned by an american company is, it owned by a chinese company, is it owned by a foreign national? it discloses all those kinds of things. so i'm the daughter of a librarian. i'm not about censorship. but i am about people being able to sort out in this day and age what is opinion, what is fact, and who is writing what so we know what their bice is and that's why -- bais is -- bias is

and that's why i oppose this amendment and newsguard is a service that counters misinformation and they've been around since 2018. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: while i appreciate my colleague's perspective, it should be noted that when conservative versus other news sources are compared with similar metrics, that the more liberal-leaning news outlets are ranked 27 points higher. this has a direct impact on revenue streams. and so to say that they are somehow unbiased literally defies the facts that i've laid out before you in that you have conservative news sites on the bottom end of the spectrum, whereas the more mainstream liberal-leaning news sites are at the top. mr. chairman, it should also be noted that newsguard is known to be reliant on and working with

the who -- w.h.o., the world health organization, which is known for disinformation and lying and is unduliy influenced by the c.c.p. this is a grant that shouldn't be authorized, it should not be continued and they should not be relied upon. marriage -- mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i would love to see your source for newsguard working directly with the world health organization. they might report things from the world health organization, but that's different than working correctly with -- directly with, because that implies something else. i'm going to just close this up just saying, you know, there are many people who want to, you know, when they're sorting through something, just want to know that there's a fact check and i'm, you know, sorry if the gentleman, mr. chair, feels that somehow or another some of the papers or the websites or the

news programs he wants to watch don't have as high a rating from newsguard. he's still free to watch and do that. but for, you know, people who want to just make sure that things are fact checked, they want to know who owns the site, who is operating the site, where they're getting their sources and sites from, that's what newsguard's function is and with that, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 172 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. rosendale: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 172. printed in part a of house report 118-216. offered by mr. rosendale of montana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana. mr. rosendale: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my amendment, number 172, would prohibit funds made available by this act to require a member of the armed forces or a civilian employee of the department of defense to receive a covid-19 vaccine. the fiscal year 2023 national defense authorization act rescinded secretary austin's memorandum requiring that

members of the armed forces be vaccinated against covid-19. unfortunately the ndaa did not prohibit future mandates. the last mandate resulted in over 8,400 troops being kicked out of the military for refusing this experimental vaccine and we lost about 60,000 reservists. countless individuals also decided not to enlist because of this mandate. while our military is failing dramatically to meet recruiting goals, it is outrageous that the department of defense would condition employment on receiving a covid-19 vaccine. for example, in 2022 the army sought 60,000 recruits, but only enlisted 45,000. for 2023, the army is aiming to recruit between 65,000 new members, but is only expected to

recruit between 50,000 and 55,000 active duty members. additionally, young healthy males are the least at risk of getting a severe case of covid-19. while they are the most likely group to have an adverse reaction from the vaccine, making the mandate not just counterproductive, but potentially dangerous. the biden administration is already urging all americans to get a booster shot, despite no human outcome data on the new shot. congress must preeveryonetively stop congress must stop these requirements before the une unelected bureaucrats try to take more control of our lives. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: the department

took bold and effective action during the covid-19 pandemic to protect our personnel as cross the force. in fact, the department of defense lost 96 service members to covid. 96 service members died from covid. more than two million service members have been vaccinated against covid-19. all the service members in the department of defense are required to comply with applicable medical readiness requirements. once requirement is when you go to boot camp, a lot have seen the movies, know people that serve. all service members must receive if they have not already, inoculations, immunizations. they usually are the same ones that we have had as children. they just want to make sure they are up to date. like you get your tetanus redone and others.

that's required. these vaccinations also include measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, and chicken box. some cases service personnel are required to take certain medications if they are deployed to an area. for example to prevent malaria. or maybe yellow fever. that's to make sure that they are safe. applicants for military service and service members may seek an exemption that's always been available to them and it continues to be available to them. to seek and exemption for vaccine requirements based on qualifying medical or religious. they can ask for that. they are often granted it. members of congress should not be directing or deciding what vaccines or medications are needed for our military personnel. madam chair, i would ask my colleagues to take a second and come along with me.

just imagine you are on a submarine. my father-in-law served on a submarine in world war ii. he would tell me how close those quarters are. i have been on them. i know how close they are. there is no place for total privacy. gems are all over. just think what would happen if there was a covid-19 outbreak. how this could possibly affect national security. all of our service personnel are in close quarters with one another. we must try to protect them from any, any disease that could inhibit their ability to execute that mission. at this point there are no covid vaccine requirements. there aren't. for any members of the total force. there aren't any requirements for this right now. the department of defense says you don't have to get this one. there are others. since there are no covid-19 vaccine requirements pending, don't know why we are debating

this amendment, madam chair. i ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentlewoman from from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you, madam speaker. i'm glad we are talking about the effectiveness and readiness of our military. again, let me quote, 60,000 reservists left the military because of a mandate. and fortunately we did learn something from it. and it was removed from the n ndaa. austin went along with t these are the mandatory vaccinations that all service members are required to receive. before initial entry into basic training. we have a virus hepatitis a and b. influenza, mosul, mumps, rub rubella, polio, diptheria, and others. the main difference is these other vaccines are much different than more effective than the covid-19 vaccine.

take measles, for example. one estimate found that measles vaccine is 85 times more effective than the pfizer covid vaccine. with that i'm going to turn over one minute to my dear friend, representative roy from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roy: i thank the chair. i thank my friend. i rise in strong support of his amendment because it is extremely important. the reason there isn't a mandate in the department of defense right now is because we demanded that it end. that's the truth. we forced it through on that omnibus spending bill last december. here's the reality. we have a doctor here in the building right now speaking to a group of members from johns hopkins university talking about the extent to which the current iteration of the covid vaccine has been tested on like 10 lab rats. hasn't gone through the human trials. when my father had polline the vaccine came after, it was a decade of testing and trials.

we have stuck this vaccine out because of panic. we have undermined the health and well-being of our soldiers, airmen, marines. we should stop t we should prohibit it in the fuhr. and make back pay available to our former members. i yield. mr. rosen dale: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from montana reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: at some point i would like the gentleman from montana to show me his statistic. we might have had 60,000 people who chose not to reup, but to attribute it all to covid, i would like to see that information. i'm sure chair calvert would like to see that. that would be important to see. that's a statistic i would like to see where it came from. i'm just going to state again that covid-19 isn't currently required. but to ban it in such a blanket way in which we are doing takes away some of the ability for the

department -- you volunteer to be on a submarine. takes away some of the flexibility that the department or commander or something, the height of a pandemic should it come again, have every tool in their toolbox. right now there is no current reason for it. i'm like, madam chair, like you, talking to friends and neighbors, some are deciding to get it. some deciding not to. just like people do with the flu shot. there are certain times that the department of defense says, you need to take these certain medications. the gentleman from montana listed off a lot of them. we have had them. our kids have had them. our service members had them. covid-19 isn't on this list right now of anything that's being required. this seems to me to be superfluous, just creates more friction and anxiousness about

how we talk about medicine that's being provided. medicine that should be options. is this an option that would be available if a service member going in said, hey, i want to get the covid vaccine. i want to have it. i like the department of defense to provide it to me. i really think we should leave it up to the medical profession of the department of defense to say what's necessary. right now they are saying this isn't a mandated vaccine. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rosendale: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, we don't have a single problem with this being an option. if any service member wants to go and get an experimental vaccination, plug food their arm, they are welcomed to do so. what we are saying is that the dollars that are going to be issued to the department of defense will not include any mandate for this experimental vaccination.

in august of 2022, "the washington post" reported that 58% of the deaths related to covid-19 were among vaccinated or boosted persons. this raises serious questions about even the effectiveness of this vaccine. i would also like to state that the covid-19 vaccine requirements also continue to ignore natural immunity. as renowned dr. marty mackery testified this year, over the past three years over 200 studies have shown that natural immunity is at least as effective than the vaccinated community. a recent natural immunity sat least as effective as the vaccinated immunity and probably better. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 173 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 173, printed in part a of house report number 118-216 offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: i thank the chair. the amendment that i have

offered increases funding for the inspector general by $20 million for an office of the special inspector general for ukraine assistance, if authorized, to enhance oversight and accountability measures for funds appropriated for ukraine, reducing inspector general by $20 million. over the last year and a half, congress has appropriated approximately $113 billion in response to russia's invasion of ukraine. now, i'm one of these individuals that believes that we did have agreements with ukraine and we have to recognize those from the mid 1990's when we asked them to denuclearized and work with ukraine and our partners in eastern europe. i also don't believe we should provide an endless supply of funds to ukraine with no clear mission, no clear accountability of the dollars, and without a clear accountability whether nato and our european allies are upholding the bargain. this is a step to try to rectify one part of that by making sure there is a fully empowered inspector general to make sure the information that we have is

complete. that we have a full understanding of every dollar that has been already appropriated. and that might be appropriated in the future. and to make sure that we are tracking it to the level necessary. there have been a number of different issues that we have identified and passed. for example, if you look at other conflicts like afghanistan, the lead for the special inspector general for afghanistan found at least $19 billion in u.s. taxpayer funds sent to afghanistan was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. from 2002 to 2020. critically important that we track this and follow it and understand it. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i'm claiming opposition only to have a discussion, madam chair. a lot of these -- let it be said loud and clear, the chair and i and all the members on the defense appropriations subcommittee have been bird

dogging, asking questions, wanting to have great recourse on what's happening with the money. you are in lockstep with what your ultimate goal is and what we have been doing on the committee. in fact we fund a lot of this. in general i support the idea of this amendment. but the bill already includes funding for the oversight dollars we spend to support ukraine. i'm a penny pincher, believe it or not, you're smiling, but i am. ask people. i ask a lot of questions like how much is this -- won't get into that. i ask a lot of questions. i'm concerned about some duplicity and inefficiencies in here, which i know is something we are thriving to make sure that it doesn't happen. keeping track of every dollar, especially when it comes to d.o.d., madam chair, is something when i was on the

oversight committee during the iraq war and the way we didn't have oversight over equipment and dollars and hard cold cash that was being delivered there is something that i'm very, very interested in and supporting in doing. i think -- i thank the gentleman for the amendment. i think the committee has it under hand. i just wanted you to know that this is a bipartisan, full appropriations subcommittee we are asking the questions every time somebody's in to see us. i thank the chair. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i thank the gentlelady. i thank her for her comments. and i think a general agreement what we are trying to accomplish. i would note that in the ndaa we passed and authorization for this. this would be the appropriation necessary to carry it out. that was the desire of our efforts to try to put a bird's eye view on this across agencies to ensure that dollars are being spent the way they are supposed to. with that i yield a minute and

half to my friend from arkansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: i thank my friend. i rise in support of the amendment. as the ranking member of the defense subcommittee just said, the defense subcommittee is united in this entire process to try to bring accountability to the table. it is practical and it is rational that we have complete accountability. and oversight. that's why this bill contains many new oversight provisions, including notification requirements before funds are spent. a g.a.o. review of the defense department's execution of presidential drawdown authority. a reporting requirement on a requirement on burden sharing for ukraine and a requirement that the inspector general review the department's end use monitoring program. provisions that go directly to the heart of the gentleman's

concerns about accountability. this bill also includes funding for a special inspector general for ukraine if authorized in the national defense authorization act. this amendment furthers these efforts. so, i urge a yes vote, i think i can speak for a good segment of our defense subcommittee, including those on the other side of the aisle, and encourage a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. roy: i would -- how much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. roy: i'd yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from indiana. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. spartz: thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong support of this amendment. i know that accountability is a foreign concept in washington, d.c., but accountability builds trust and it's very important

considering the track record of this administration, considering the track record of department of defense, it hasn't been auditable. considering the track record of the ukrainian government. the american people do have proper accountability. accountability will be key to success for very brave ukrainian people fighting the fight against evil and winning that fight. so i will strongly urge support of this. it's a very, very serious war and we don't want to have another failure like we had in afghanistan. thank you. mr. roy: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. roy: madam chair, i have an anticipated at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 174

printed in part a of house report 118-216. the clerk will designate the amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 174. printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: i thank the chair. the amendment that i'm offering reduces the salary of cyprus sal disark the director of the department of defense's office for diversity, equity and inclusion, to $1. now, you might ask why would we do that? it's a power that we have in the house of representatives under the rule to try to restrain the executive branch, both in terms of expense, dollars, how they're being used, and in terms of what they're being used for. the american people are frankly

getting a little tired of a department of defense that is being taken far too often off-mission. i hear it all the time. i hear it from veterans, i hear it from active duty, i hear it from recruits, with recruiting numbers at low levels, with morale at questionable levels, we need to reinstill in our military a crystal clear focus on mission first. and importantly, when we are, to use the gentlelady's term, which i take to heart, pinching pennies, and trying to find dollars because we need to stop racking up $33 trillion in debt, when we can't even figure out how to fund the salaries of our rank and file men and women in uniform at the level that we might need to, when we're dealing with the sloos of increasing -- issues of increasing health costs, when we're dealing with the issues of needing to have a fully armed military, with the latest and greatest technologies to defeat

china, then it would seem questionable that, for example, we would have positions like the following. air force is looking for a supervisory diversity, equity and inclusion accessibility officer that will pay between $155,000 to $183,000 per year. another one, the air force is looking for a diversity and inclusion manager to work at andrews air force base in maryland which pays between $94,000 to $122,000 per year. another position in alaska, another position in alabama. i could go down the list. and this is the top of that pyramid. and what we're trying to say is, we shouldn't do this. we need to stop this. we need to stop diverting the mission of the military, which, a laudable goal of ensuring you've got a work force that is representative of the population of this country. you don't need an entire bureaucracy within the pentagon

to do it that is then perpetuating a lot of divisive policies. for example, west point academy, cadets were told that whitens is, quote, a location of structural advantage of race privilege, a standpoint or place from which white people look at themselves and the rest of society and refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. another, former chief diversity officer at d.o.d. schools tweeted, quote, i'm so exhausted at these white folks in these professional development sessions. this lady actually had the caudacity to say black people can be racist too. end quote. this is not the kind of thing that should be going on at the united states military and the pentagon. this is one step of many that we need to take to return the military to its core mission and end this social engineering wrapped in a uniform rather than doing the job of defending this

great country. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: so, cyrus salazar, as has been pointed out, is the director of department of defense for divert, equity and inclues, in charge with promoting diversity wfn the d.o.d. the -- within the d.o.d. the department has the responsibility to make sure all members are welcome within the service of our nation and it reflects america's defense. i worked in the private sector until basically, i mean, i served part-time in city councils and that but i worked in the private sector until i came here to congress. and so i still have a lot of friends in the private sector, where i represent 3-f, right across the -- 3-m, right across the riiver in minneapolis, general mills, target, i could go on and on with the companies that we have.

and these companies are competing for talent. when it is the person -- whether it is the pepper who is helping you -- person who is helping you at the target store with the checkout or whether it's the person that is being recruited to go into teaching or a person who is going to become a c.e.o. or a compliance officer or a bank auditor, we're all competing for work force right now. and our labor trades are competing for work force. so there's fewer and fewer people kind of entering the work force and so there's a great competition going on. and these companies have diversity offices so that -- they're going out and talking to groups that maybe have never been in the industry before, and i'll use the building trades again. so in our building trades, they are knocking down the doors, going to our high schools. they have people just working on

diversity, saying, these are great paying jobs, let me tell you about them, maybe nobody in your family's been a plummer, maybe -- plumber, maybe nobody's been an electrician or pipe fitter or maybe you've never worked road construction. these are great jobs for you. but they are going out and they are recruiting these people. and we're up against the same challenge of recruitment and retention that the private sector is. in fact, we're competing for the same work force. so of course in my opinion we need to be doing some of this diversity and inclusion. and the gentleman from texas, when he quoted what was said at west point, i totally agree with him, those are horrific statements and that person's gone and they should be gone. but the d.o.d. is struggling with a challenge and right now our civilian work force doesn't reflect the diversity of other federal agencies.

so we're trying to get more women, more men, more everybody in this country to know that the d.o.d. is a great place to work and that once you're there, you're going to love the job and we're going to give you the tools and the tool box to do it. i will close with this. one of the things that i've been working on is cybersecurity. and i.t. and linguistics. and i come from a culturally rich district. i have -- we have -- you come to the university avenue in st. paul and the diversity of the restaurants and small businesses that are there, it will blow your mind away. it's rich in diversity. but we still find, even with all being in the same neighborhoods and communities, we still have to do outreach to say, you're welcome. one of those places is cybersecurity. a lot of these businesses are being hacked, they're having issues with it, and we're going

to the high schools and the community colleges and we're looking at folks like, there is a place for you in cybersecurity. and they're like, me? yeah, you. sometimes people need to be welcomed in, they need to have the opportunity to be recruited. so, i really think that having someone that oversees opportunity, equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion, making sure that disability programs, i mean, we have our service members who come back and sometimes have to be relocated into another position or a job, that's what this office can do. and so i know we've gotten down this track of how we can divide ourselves, talking about diversity and inclusion. i want us to embrace it in a way, to have a more unified work force and to recruit and retain the best and the brightest to work in the department of defense. with that, madam chair, i'm just

going to yield back because i think we've had this discussion over and over again today. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i thank the chair. the united states military is one of the few institutions in america where the skills of the men or women on either side of you could mean the difference between life and death. and at the end of the day, it embodies, i think, dr. king's notion of judging men and women on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. yet the biden administration is infat waited with divvying us up -- infat waited -- infatuated with divvying us up by race. i appreciate the gentlelady's remarks and the tone in which they were offered, corporate america is slashing d.e.i. officers amid a backlash to diversity programs across the country. story right here about the numbers of how many offices have been being slashed over the last year. in part, in part because they

don't have much value -- add much value to the bottom line in which the economy is hurting and people are suffering. an also in part because they're getting a backlash to having so much focus by divvying us up by race and all these characteristics that it's not actually good. we're seeing this in countless corporations across the country. story after story, if you just google it and see what's going on out there, i think the department of defense should be in line with where we're seeing our society recoil at this divvying us up by race and this is one way to accomplish that objective and with that i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 175 printed in

part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment amendment number 175 printed in part a of house report 118-216 offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: i thank the chair. the amendment that is being put forward here would say that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out the observance of pride month authorized by the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness for the cultural observance of awareness events list. first of all, that whole title should give you a little bit of pause. but at the end of the day, in line with the amendment that i just offered, the goal here

should be to ensure that our military is focused on the mission and building cohesion to accomplish the mission. now we've got the department of defense focusing on, for example, the air force releasing a memo entitled, department of the air force observance of lgbtq pride month, which empowered installation commanders to plan and conduct appropriate activities to honor pride month, which they then did which resulted in, for example, you got the department of the navy issuing a memo declaring june's month theme, peace, love, revolution, a flyer advertising robin's air force base 2023 pride month events, included information for service members and their families to attend the pride night game night and unity and diversity and color run because some of the colleagues voiced opposition, the air force base approved and then canceled a scheduled drag show to celebrate pride month. what on earth are we doing? what are we doing?

my constituents, i represent fort sam houston, san antonio, i represent countless veterans attached to or having served at joint base san antonio or otherwise, in central texas. and they come to me and shake their heads and say what are we doing? what happened. we need to beat china. we need to be in a position to carry out multiple front wars around the globe if necessary. we need the minest fighting force in the world with the best technology and best training. again, it's one thing to respect someone's private life and differences, but to carry out your objective in the office without having the -- office without having the department of defense promoting dividing us up by our various characteristics. that's the reality. on social media the marines tweet add pride month image with a rainbow tipped bullets on a marine helmet featuring the words, proud to serve. i'm sure the chinese military is

quaking in its boots. with the rainbow-tipped bullets being tweeted around the world. the air force tweeted an image with the silhouette of an airman saluting in front of the pride flag. the navy changed the logo to shapes and aircraft in front of a rainbow flag. again, that's the flag. right there. red, white, and blue. that is the flag. no other flag. we are talking about what the united states military should be standing in front of. and should be projecting. i don't -- very few constituents who disagree with this sentiment that we should be focused on having a military designed to when called upon to blow stuff up and kill people in defense of this country as needed. and to be the best fighting force to accomplish that objective in the world. and to be trained. and to have a clear mission. and side note, while i'm sitting here on the floor talking about the department of defense appropriations, not engaged in

endless conflict without congressional engagement in terms of authorizations of use of military, which by the way we were supposed to be addressing by the end of this month. i'll save that for a different speech. i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady rise? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i'm going to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: we honor and celebrate many cultural events. we celebrate hanukkah, we celebrate on the national mall, we light a christmas tree outside here at the capitol, and having when my father was with the d.o.d. served in many bases that the gentleman mentioned in texas, i can tell you about some observations that i had of celebrating texas pride. so we have a history of celebrating a lot of things. black history month was first observed in 1976 by president

ford. yes, we celebrate pride month. and we celebrate other cultural awareness months. national hispanic pride month. and what they do when the d.o.d. does that is they show they are committed to creating and affirming an inclusive environment and everybody's welcomed with their diversity. everybody has something to offer. at a time when the lgbtq community, along with so many other minority groups in this country are facing attacks and threats, just think what happened, mr. chair, we had a moment of silence on this house floor after what happened at the pulse nightclub shooting in florida. it's more important than ever that people know that we have their backs when they are under attack. mr. chair, i was in the chair you're in when this floor ended ask don't tell on the ndaa act. that made our military more

inclusive. i think of a dear friend of mine who served in the navy who served under -- when he couldn't be who he was openly and was serving proudly in the navy. but he had to hide who he was until he was discharged. then he felt he could come out. it was a burden that he carried with him. this amendment has no place in the defense bill. i don't think it has any piece in legislation that we do here. we are about coming together as a country. not trying to fight what divides us. we should be focused on what unites us. what unites us and one of the things that unites us is we are a country that -- not everybody agrees all the time but we are a diverse community. we celebrate that. the people who came here when they were originally 13 colonies

came here because they were looking for freedom to be who they were. it was religious freedom at the time. that's what they came for. the federal government reco recognizes these cultural awareness months. the house of representatives recognizes many cultural awareness events. and we do that because we honor the contributions and services of all communities. pride month should be no different. that's why i oppose this amendment. i encourage my colleagues to do the same. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i'll be brief in the interest of moving things along. the only thing i would note is with respect to the difference, for example, of talking about christmas trees and celebrating the birth of our lord and savior jesus christ and a pride flag, i would say they are different. i would also note there have been problems at the department of defense with people expressing their faith. there are christians who are being limited in their ability to have christian displays in their offices and we had to have groups like first liberty

litigate it in court to defend their right to be able to display said christian symbols and statements in their office cubicle. this is what's going on at the department of defense and people don't understand it. i think this is a commonsense effort to refocus our military on the mission to which it should be focused. and acknowledging that we are a diverse community is great. but the department of defense can acknowledge that diversity, bring people together to carry out the mission without perpetuating essentially social engineering at the department of defense. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i will close in just a minute. i mentioned a friend. i have several friends in high school. i graduated in 1972. that were gay. hid the fact that they were.

served when recruitment was kind of down after the vietnam war. served honorably. had honorable discharges. when mr. pocan shared this, mr. chair, when we were in full markup of the committee, it was very moving to me. i'm going to share something. it's the sacrifice that our lgbtq friends still make before don't-ask, don't-tell. here's a quote. it's a quote on the tombstone of sergeant leonard. when i was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men. and discharged me for living one. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. roy: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady. ms. mccollum: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 176 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 176, printed in part a of house report number 118-216.

offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: the amendment that i'm offering here would prohibit funds from being available under this act for the marine corps university rental scholars program. i was unaware of this relatively blissfully. couple months ago. but then the marine corps university's rental scholar program at the center is a year-long program for students who wish to explore, quote, gender insecurity issues. that may not have jumped on my radar screen but i became aware because the official center twitter account publicly criticized the user for calling this program, quote, woke, and calling this individual a stain on the legacy of marines.

well, it seems inappropriate for a federally funded center so it caught my attention. then it became clear to me when i had a silly bus presented to me -- silly bus -- silly bus presented to me about what was being presented. here are a few examples and program themes essentials. quote, dentering war, end quote. quote, what is gender and how is it different from biological sex. quote, how war narrative is constructed through gender discourse, end quote. quote, how can we imagine nonviolent masculinities and the role they might play in conflict, end quote. pretty darn violent. how might the united states marine corps strategic mareny oc for women, peace, and security, encode. this is something again my constituents, i think a large block of the american electorate, dare i say very

sizable majority, would say, what are you doing? again, let's assume we were swimming in money. let's just assume that we had money coming out of our ears. that we had $33 trillion surplus we banked up and saving for a rainy day to spend $33 trillion. loath's assume -- let's assume we had a $2 trillion surplus instead of deficit. assume our recruiting numbers were excellent. assume further we had strong morale. assume further that our health care costs at the military were manageable or health care costs anywhere in this country at all were manageable in the post world with prices have skyrocketed. another speech for another day. in that imaginary world where that were the state of things, would this still be a good idea

to spend even a dollar or $10 or $100,000, or $5 million, or whatever the amount is? would it be a good idea to spend that money for this? for how a war narrative is constructed for gender discourse. how we can imagine nonviolent masculinities and the role they might play in conflict. again, the american people just want us to focus on making this government do its core constitutional duty, do it within its fiscal responsibilities, do it in terms of providing a mission to defend this country, secure our borders, provide for the general welfare in the sense that you are allowing the american people to do what they do best if the government gets out of the way. stop bleeding money. stop racking up debt. defend the united states. stop social engineering. and just do your damn job as congress. i think that ought to be a

pretty simple goal. and a bipartisan goal. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman yield. the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition? ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i strongly oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: this feels to me, mr. chair, like another attempt by the majority to go after minority groups in the military. here's the history. the rendals scholarship program was designed to study women in the military. it was named after lawrie reynolds, a decorated female marine corps general. it was established to comply with the peace and security act of 2016. the f.y.2021 national defense re-authorization act, the department of defense peace woman security strategic framework. this is something congress has weighed in. let me read a description to the program, i mean the gentleman from texas has read some

excerpts. i will take them at face value he's upset with them. i will read some discriminations for -- descriptions for you and i can cite the sources and put it in the full remarks later for the committee to have. women account for the majority of women account for the majority and it advocates for the recognition and diverse perspectives of increased military effectiveness and supports the empowerment of half the world's population as equal partners for preventing and managing conflicts. now, i've not been to the scholarship program but i have traveled with military, i've traveled with state, and i've been with women who have been

adversely affected by armed conflicts, raped, tortured, bullied, harassed, and it's often our military and our military women that sometimes in these conflicts are having conversations with them and trying to get the facts of the crimes committed. it takes a very special person to do that. it confirms the important role of deciding conflicts and peacekeeping. the bush in the bush administration when i was first serving in congress had me go to yemen and speak with our military at a graduation of yemen soldiers we had been working with and training with. and part of the message the state department and bush administration and our department of defense wanted to communicate was the importance of young girls going to school.

in chad, i witnessed after leaving in the refugee camp and after there was an attack in the area, not only with what happened to the women there, but our military female leaders interacting with the troops there in chad we were working with, peacekeeping troops, reinforcing women needed to be treated with dignity and respect. i'll end with this at this particular part of talking about this, often when we go to build peace, whether it's sustaining the peace in northern ireland or looking for peace in conflict in north africa or whether it's working with terrible situations in latin america, it is the women when we bring to the table that can get the attention of the community and community elders because they talk about

their children and the need for peace. so i have seen, i don't know if these people were graduates of this program, but i have seen where women make a difference and the male members of our military that are part of these programs, they're indispensable and very important. so as a woman, as a woman who stands up for our women in the military and our allies in the military, i have to tell you, i see nothing woke. i see nothing woke about trying to understand the intersection of women in conflict. i only see it as a benefit. so in my opinion, this amendment is anti-female in what it is purporting to take away from the scholarship program moving forward. i oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

reserves. the gentleman reserves or is recognized? mr. roy: reserves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. ms. mccollum: i have nothing more to say except that i don't think it's intentional sometimes, some of the things that are happening on the floor today, but one of the things that, you know, we chant as kids is sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. words hurt. they hurt. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i would agree with the gentlelady that words hurt. the question is is how those words are deployed and what they do for the mission of our united states military. when i see taxpayer dollars going to fund a syllabus which was not something in public view, which then became in public view after an online kind of disagreement with things like

what is gender and how is it different from biological sex and all of the things we're focusing on and we talk about it in other contexts with funding transgender surgeries and funding other manners of the social engineering currently going on i believe is ripping apart the fabric of our country and strength of our military and the cohesion of the finest fighting fierce in the world, and i believe it's important for us to try to maintain that. i'm enormously proud for the women i've nominated for academies and met with women and men just two weeks ago with my staff in a retreat we went to the united states naval academy, enormously proud of their service and proud of everybody who has worn the uniform and been honorably discharged for their service. but we need to stand up for a military that's focused on its mission. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to bring up report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: the house report 177 offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: the amendment before us would prohibit any of the funds in the defense appropriations bill from being used to carry out president biden's executive

orders on climate change. our military should be, as i've stated in these other amendments, focused on deterring and if necessary, defeating our adversaries. president biden wants to continue to sacrifice the strength of our defense in deference to the climate cult. in 2021 the department of defense spokesman john kirby refused to say china was a bigger national security threat to the united states than climate change. he called them, quote, equally important and said it doesn't do anybody good to make a relative assessment of national security issues. secretary of defense lloyd austin said, quote, climate change is an existential threat to our nation's security and secretary of state john kerry literally travels to china to discuss climate change, not china's increased aggression towards taiwan or the oppression of its people, but it has served

as the catalyst for massive reforms of the department of defense to undermine national security to advance a climate fetish. the department of defense's climate adaptation plans include radical proposals to reduce greenhouse expense at the heart of our defense. why miss an opportunity to push such an ideology? the department of defense says it will transition to 100% carbon free electricity. meaning america's war machine will literally depend on the wind and the sun unless they're going to be moving nuclear power which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not been all too quick to help us move. meanwhile, china has 1100 coal fired plants and is building close to two a week p. we've been building zero.

we've been claiming natural gas fired electricity and only recently have had one nuclear plant get launched i think for the first time since the mid 1970's. the d.o.d. mandated all tacticals be e.v.'s by 2035. the tactical e.v.'s to win wars are not far behind and our defense will become wholly dependent on chinese batteries and other critical minerals. i always wondered why my colleagues are not bothered by 82% of these batteries are using cobalt and being mined heavily by slave labor, often child labor and doesn't seem to be any concern about what that means by continuing to perpetuate a mandate to send us down that road when it won't dent co-2 production. it's living in a fantasy land. you eliminated the internal combustion engine in the united

states tomorrow, you might prevent worldwide co-2 production by a percent or percent and a half and chinese and india are pumping it out in mass volumes but yet we're going to inject this directly in the veins of our national security and why i offered this amendment and believe it's critically important so we again can have our military focused on a core mission, defending this country. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: the fact is our earth is warming and the fact is our climate is changing and it's unprecedented. i've been to alaska several times. the last time i was on some of our bases in alaska, we're dealing with permafrost -- perma

frost not being able to land the planes on the runways we've constructed. the corps of engineers is trying to figure out what to do with what is happening with the permafrost they're seeing to make our buildings be resilient and sustainable and how do we build buildings in the future to address this? that's happening in alaska. i won't talk about what's happening with our radar facilities sliding off into the ocean. at the -- the start of the hurricane season is historic and hurricane hillary brought california its first tropical storm watch. that's new. we know these events are worldwide and know they know no boundaries and is evident by the canadien wildfires. the u.s. set a world record for the number of disasters this year that could cost $1 billion or more. 23 so far. and i'm going to refer again to what i had in my opening

remarks. this is temple air force base. we flew planes out of there because we knew it was coming. but we weren't able to protect the infrastructure. we are spending billions and billions and billions of dollar. the other thing i mentioned is what happened in guam with the recent storms there. the air force alone in guam is seeing $40 billion. we have to wake up here. we have to wake up and do what we can to mitigate these costs. now, the department of defense is the largest and most wide-reaching government agency. it can make a huge difference by climate friendly changes in the way that they operate. and i'm proud of the fact we've worked on them in the defense bill. this amendment is needless and makes it difficult for the department of defense to achieve its climate goals. it jeopardizes our military readiness when we had bases like the one i just shows on tinsel

and what has happened in guam. the chairman joint chiefs of staff, general milley said climate change is a serious threat that faces our country and one the military must take into account. he went on to say that climate change has a significant effect on military operations. and i quote, climate change is going to impact natural resources, it's going to impact the increased instability and various parts of the world and it's going to impact migrations. yes. it's a problem not only here at home on our bases with resilience but it's a problem with people fleeing climate change. and what has happened in their lives and in their countries. each of these situations increases the instability in different regions which could trigger more hostilities that we have to respond to to protect ourselves. each of these situations can increase different regions in

very, very different ways, even in our own hemisphere. so we need to ensure our military is aware of the problems climate change could cause and if they could play a role in either resilience of buildings or different energy sources that they use so we're not burning as much fossil fuel, i think we should do that. now, obviously the gentleman disagreed, but i'm looking to the future, i'm not looking to the past but looking for a stronger, more flexible, and more resilient and more economically empowered united states because the dollars that we put into much of this climate resilience and that is also transferable into the private sector and the work that the department of defense is doing to reduce its energy costs, whether it's in materials we're building or whether it's in use with all the equipment our soldiers are having to carry, ways in which we can solar power some of the equipment that they

use so we're not bringing these huge oil trucks in that we all watched every night for how many weeks of our soldiers, many of them dieing in front of our own eyes transporting fuel? i think it can be a win-win. and we need to look at it as a win-win. we can't always be looking at it as a loss-loss. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. roy: china's military sent 103 warplanes in taiwan in a 24-hour period in what the defense ministry called a recent new high. 40 of these planes crossed the line from mainland china and taiwan. there's a lot going on in the world. we'll have debates about ukraine, i hope so, rather than just tacking on a continuing resolution and jamming it through the american people but that's a debate for another day. the question here is just simply whether or not we're going to

have, in the gentlelady's words, a strong military, resilient military and strong economy on the back of that or wrapped around that when in fact what we're doing through the inflation reduction act is spending almost $1 trillion, according to the "wall street journal," in massive subsidies going to 90% to billion dollar organizations, heavily to the most elite, rich, frankly usually white liberals in this country driving around their e.v. powered cars and subsidizing the crud out of that while decimating the natural gas strength of this country which puts us in a much stronger position from a national security perspective vis-a-vis russia, vis-a-vis china rather than empowering china by saying sure, let us buy all your solar panels and all your batteries so we can transfer our military to something that isn't even remotely ready to be transferred with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman from yields. the gentlewoman yields. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 178 part a of house report number 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. tiffany: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 178. printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by mr. tiffany of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany, and a member opposed, each control for five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from wisconsin. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, my amendment would prohibit the department of defense from creating, procurement, or displaying any map which depicts taiwan as part of the territory of the people's republic of china. this should not be a problem since all of us know that taiwan is not nor has it ever been part of communist china. any claims to the contrary are simply false. since the 1970's, america's so-called one china policy has acknowledged beijing's bogus claims over taiwan. this is an antiquated and dishonest policy and one that we should abandon. while my amendment would not end that misguided policy, it would at least -- it will at least require that the maps that we use reflect a simple reality. china is china. taiwan is taiwan. i ask for a yes vote on my honest maps amendment. and i yield -- excuse me.

mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does gentlewoman seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: in part i rise in opposition to this amendment. oddly enough as a social studies teacher that taught some geography. the department of defense and the administration of this congress have been clear on its position to the unwelcomed chinese assertion and control of the taiwan. this amendment will do nothing to prevent the chinese aggression in the indo-pacific, but it would prevent the department of defense from buying or displaying a map on how chinese views the world. if you are going to have a discussion with students about geography and china's ambitions, china has maps. china has maps which they rewrite history. whether they rewrite history including taiwan. or whether they rewrite history as they have done in tibet. or looking at doing in other

parts of the world. they have maps. and so we can't be blinded or not acknowledge how they view the world physically and what the world really is. this would force the department to put its head in the sand or obtain intelligence or something on how the chinese have labeled as theirs -- theirs. i think we agree it's important to know what our allies and adversaries are thinking and sometimes we have to physically look at it. instead i believe congress and the department should focus on our time and energy on being clear with china about the respect for international boundaries and rule of law. and one way you can show that is the international boundaries in the rule of law on a map that we can all agree on that is correct and showing how china is coming up with their own -- with their own maps reinterpreting the boundaries themselves. i oppose this amendment and i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, i'm stunned. i mean this is the type of appeasement that gets the world in trouble. we have a long history of this. and our country is very familiar with it. going back to probably the most classic example that's taught in our mystery books from the 1930's. where there isn't this clear demarcation. where you do not have definitive language like president reagan when he said, this is one of them in regards to taiwan. because communist china would like to take over that island nation. an island nation that they never controlled. that they never -- it was never under their control.

we can appease. and we will continue to see dozens, perhaps hundreds of sorties being flown over taiwan as aggression comes from that appeasement. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlethe gentlewoman is re. ms. mccollum: i'm certain that the gentleman from wisconsin does not think i appease china. i don't. i do not. in fact, china when we went to visit taiwan at one point i was on a delegation and they were going to refuse us entry because they see it as hostile. china doesn't see me as an appeaser. i want to be clear, maybe it's not the intention of this gentleman, i'm going to say it again. you are in a military college situation. you are talking about how china

views the world. you put up the real map. and somehow or another the department of defense can't -- it even display, procure, create, or display a map that shows how china sees themselves viewing the world. we can in conflict with china right now in the south island seas. and not to show how china sees these islands as theirs when we are sending our navy in there to protect freedom of seas against a map which shows the freedom of sea that is they are protecting. that doesn't make sense to me. with that i am just going to yield back because i am lost for words why we can't show how china views the world when we are getting ready to defend our democracy. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, i'll take the point in good faith

from the lady on the other side. if you have a good instructor, they can clearly explain how china views the world. if you have a good instructor in the department of defense, perhaps in the military college, they can explain very clearly how china views the world. this does not preclude that in any way. but when we make a trip like i did recently with the natural resources committee and we have a map that's put before us that shows taiwan as part of communist china, that is just simply not the truth. that is what we are getting at.. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 179 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. tiffany: i the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 179, printed in part a of house report number 118-216. offered by mr. tiffany of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, my amendment would prevent the enforcement of several arbitrary state department restrictions that limit communication and

cooperation between u.s. officials and their counterparts in taiwan. these restrictions, which are imposed at the behest of communist china, are not only counterproductive, they actually conflict with existing u.s. law. they prevent high ranking officials from traveling to taiwan which makes it difficult for us to coordinate with military panels in tie pie. they impose degrading restrictions that serve no reasonable purpose such as a ban on displaying taiwan's flag. and the playing of taiwan's national ran them -- anthem at functions held on u.s. government property. they are designed to prevent and limit high level interaction between u.s. and taiwanese officials. despite that's been official u.s. policy since 2018 to encourage and

they simply perpetuate beijing's lies and reward their bad behavior. america does not need a permission slip from communist china to talk to our friends and allies. and that policy should end today. i ask for a yes vote on this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does gentlewoman vehicle recognition? ms. mccollum: i oppose this amendment. i'm in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mccollum: the executive branch has the ability to determine how the united states engages and manages our relationship with taiwan. just as at times this congress has decided when an where -- and where to travel. it's because congress has looked into the executive branch,

however, to conduct the diplomacy. and the recognition or nonrecognition of foreign states and governments in this case. i believe, mr. chair, if we want to legislate on how the executive branch should engage with taiwan, then what we should do is mark it up in a separate bill in the foreign affairs committee that deals just with that. either the authorizers are going to have the authorize -- authorization handle it or the foreign affairs appropriations bill on the floor at some point i hope. in the absence of that, the executive branch needs to determine how to handle diplomatic engagements abroad. it's their job to weigh multiple equities and balance deli cat factors simply -- delicate factors simply not considered by this amendment today. the gentleman knows an understands that taiwan is a sensitive geopolitical subject with respect to our relations with the people's republic of china. i appreciate that.

mr. chair, we have a select committee in this house and i think it's something that we should allow them in a bipartisan fashion to examine. there is too much at stake in my opinion to have this amendment decide what guidelines of engagement will be here today on the house floor much i oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, america has always done best in regards to foreign policy when we are strong and resolute. this is anything but strong and resolute. let me read to you from an unclassified document from the state department. you should not refer to taiwan as a country or to the authorities on taiwan as a government. instead, refer to taiwan authorities or taiwan counterparts. please avoid the public display or use of any r.o.c. symbols of sovereignty. taiwan authorities should not wear their uniforms on u.s. government premises unless necessary for safety reasons. you're almost saying to them, we

need you to grovel. you are second class citizens when you are interacting with the united states of america. we should never treat a friend like that. in particular a friend like taiwan. where you see the communist chinese government is working day after day. they have been successful in someplaces, like the solomon islands, in central america, where they have undermined the support for taiwan. we should be standing resolutely with taiwan and sending very clear message. because when we send a clear message to communist china, it is important for them to hear that. but our partners, our allies around the world also see that clear message and they are more likely to be resolute also. i reserve. . the chair: the gentleman reserves.

the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: we are sending an important message and i support that message. what the gentleman from wisconsin is talking about is the department of state and that is not germane to this bill and there are bills on the floor where it will be germane to and that is my biggest concern with this amendment is i don't want to be of the authorizing committee that oversees that funding and that's not what the bill is about today and for that reason alone to respect the different morals that we have in this body, this amendment, though well-intentioned by my colleague from wisconsin, is not germane to this bill and we should not overstep our jurisdiction. we should stay with what we're

doing with china and taiwan in the defense bill which the chair has marked out clearly. i support that but do not support starting to dictate what the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee for state and foreign ops will be doing with that and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: if there is a point of order being rated here my amendment does not change any existing law or require any due determination or any employee from the department of homeland security but prohibits funds of contravention of a long-standing existing law which the department ought to comply with already. mr. speaker, i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 180 printed in part a of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. roesen dale: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 180 printed in house report 118-216 offered by mr. roesen dale of montana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from montana, mr. roesen dale, and a member opposed each will control roesen dale: thank you.

everyone understands there is a huge difference between a covid-19 mask mandate and having a section of a medical facility that is quarantined off because of highly contagious diseases or folks that are immune deficient that has nothing to do with the covid-19 mandate. this is only about covid-19 mandates. last month, morris brown college in atlanta reinstated its covid-19 mask mandate. they eventually rescinded the mandate in large part due to public outcry. make no mistake, tyrants will go out of their way to control our lives if we allow them to. the simple fact is that masks don't work. a recent study confirmed this

fact stating, quote, wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenzalike illnesses, covid-19like illnesses compared to not wearing masks, end quote. this was obvious to anyone with common sense that our experts lied to us for the past three years about everything. there are also negative consequences and potential safety concerns for children being forced to wear a mask. there are almost 70,000 children that attend department of defense education activity schools. we have seen the negative consequences of children masking and children of our service members who are risking their lives overseas should not be subject to this cruel treatment. nobody should be turned away for refusing to wear a mask. but the real purpose of the mask

mandate is for unelected bureaucrats to control our behavior which is unacceptable and something i will not tolerate. moreover, a potential mask mandate based on vaccination status would create a division among service members. there's been a lot of discussion on enacting police policies that create cohesion among members of the armed forces and stigmatizing some service members by forcing them to wear a mask that would create a group of second class citizens. this would ultimately create division among enlisted members. the american people are sick of covid-19 hysteria by unelected bureaucrats and will not comply with any more unscientific edicts. thanks very much. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition?

ms. mccollum: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the apartment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. ms. mccollum: i appreciate what the gentleman said about protecting medical facilities but i'm going to read the amendment. at the end of the bill before the short line, insert the following section, the section will be numbered, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce any covid-19 mask mandate, any. so on a d.o.d. facility at a hospital or something like that, they would not be able to enforce a mask mandate if they felt one was necessary in a certain section of the hospital or clinic. now to the amendment in general. if this was enacted, the department, as i pointed out, would be limited in what they could do. they couldn't even purchase any masks in case of a covid surge but the c.d.c. and world health

organization recommended using a mask as a tool to protect people, especially the vulnerable in cases of covid-19 surge. now, here's why an option is necessary in the military. and i mentioned this earlier, mr. chair. i once again ask you and my colleagues to consider life on a submarine, the close quarters, the lack of privacy. now think what would happen if there's a covid outbreak in a submarine. it would have the potential of impacting the ability of that submarine to stay on station or deploy, putting our national security at risk. if enacted, this amendment would take away a safety tool for the commander, for the commander to use, a tool they have in their toolbox. one person tests for covid, sorry, folks, we're in a submarine, we're all kind of breathing the same air, we're ig to have to put on a mask.

our commanders deserve our trust. they deserve our respect. that they're going to act in the best interest of their crew so they can execute their mission. so i don't want to take any tools away from people in that circumstance. and this amendment would do exactly that. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and this time, mr. chair, eileen yield back the balance of my time because we've talked a lot about covid so i yield back. the chair: gentlewoman yields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rosendale: i'm glad the gentlelady from minnesota brought up the actual bill. none of the funds made available by this act, very clear, very simple, may be used to enforce any covid-19 mask mandates. let me reiterate, highly contagious diseases or folks immune deficient have nothing to do with the covid-19 mandate.

if someone is concerned, here's the other thing, if someone is concerned or chooses to virtue signal by wearing a mask, they're free to do so. they are absolutely free to do so. if they have immune deficiency and want to wear a mask, they're free to do so. but do not impose the mandates of us freedom-loving individuals who don't want to walk around covering our faces up just to let someone else feel a little better about things. we have problems right now with recruitment. as much as 35%. the numbers are down. we're missing goals dramatically approving arbitrary mandates that don't help the military mission to be the most effective fighting force on earth is not the way that we're going to get those numbers up. mr. chair, this is a good amendment and will help us with recruiting efforts and help us

make sure our teamworks together better. and i would ask everyone in here to support it. thank you very much and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i move the committee now do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. aye.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. >> mr. chairman? mr. speaker, the committee of the whole under the state of the union had under consideration h.r. 4365 directs me to report it's come to no resolution there. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4365 and has come to no resolution there. there-on.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4367, that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i want to begin by --

the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to house resolution 723 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4367. the chair appoints the gentleman from idaho, mr. fulcher, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4367, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending

september 30th, 2024 and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the committee of appropriations or their respective designees. the gentleman from ohio, mr. joyce, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, each will control 30 minutes. the chair mr. joyce: i want to begin by thanking the chair woman of the full committee for her leadership to bring these appropriation bills to the floor. i want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, my good friend, mr. cuellar, who has worked with us in good faith on the bill despite disagreements on policy and i have enjoyed sitting next to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentlelady from connecticut, not once, but twice.

it provides $62.8 billion for the department ofhomeland security, increase of $2.1 billion above fiscal year 2023 level. the bill includes 23 billion for the response and activity levels to support communities after the devastating wildfires in maui. and one of the most pressing changes is the border security crisis that has raged. two million migrants have crossed in the last two years. just yesterday alone, there were 11,000 migrant encount i.r.s. --

this bill returns to a tried and true border security approach to secure the border and deter those who have no basis for entering. there is physical barriers that the funds be put on contract quickly. the chief of the border patrol and other border security professionals have confirmed that walls work. the bill provides $500 million

to hire more border patrol agents. the bill increases funding levels for border security technology so the officers have the latest effective equipment to defect and deter illegal activity. fentanyl has been ravaging our communities. so this bill provides $305 million for nonintrusive equipment. detention is a deterrent who want to falsely claim asylum. the bill provides funding for 41,000 500 detention beds which is more than this administration requested to ensure that i.c.e. has capacity to detain those who pose a risk as well as migrants that illegally cross our borders. the bill provides $335 million

to the coast guard for fast response cutters and increase our presence, the bill provides for coast guard for ice breaker to counter chinese and russian expansion into the polar regions. the bill before us today ensures that the men and women of department ofhomeland security who work tirelessly on our behalf have the resources and tools they need to protect this great nation. mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. cuellar: first of all, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank the chair woman kay granger and ranking member delauro for working together as much as possible and i want to

thank chairman david joyce. i know we have some disagreements but at the end of this process, are going to be working together making sure that the homeland security bill passes in a bipartisan way. members, you know this democrats and republicans had a deal when we passed a debt bill some months ago. now we have our colleagues, house republicans are backing away from this deal and yielding to some extreme demands that will not help border security. and now the house remains in chaos as the republicans have the infighting that that will all but gar and at the at the hands of the far right. instead of working on a bipartisan continuing resolution that will keep the government open, one that will pass both chambers and signed into law, we are here talking about bills that are not going to go very

far in the senate. so again, i want to make sure that people understand that we want to work together. we want to make this a bipartisan bill to get it done. as the ranking member of the homeland appropriations and member that actually lives on the border, i am very concerned to ensure that the border is secure and the department has the resources to do that successfully. instead what are we doing? if we have a shutdown, over 226 folks -- employees from the department of homeland and will continue to work for a period of time and not get paid. that is not the way to create moralee for our border patrol and other agents we have down there at the border. i support the hiring of additional agents, but if there is a shutdown, this will prevent us from unboarding the additional agents in october.

it would stop the recruitment and vetting efforts to unboard additional agents later on. we cannot have a shutdown and make sure we work together to prevent the shutdown itself. if you look at the bill itself, the proposed bill, let's look at a couple of things. yes, we did have bipartisan investments and oversight requirements that we work together but there are certain policy decisions and policy riders that i cannot support. we have to understand the border. some of my colleagues don't understand the border and call it a war zone. if you look at the criminal records or the criminal figures that we have, whether it's murder, rape, assault, the border is actually safer than other parts of the country. in fact washington ddz is about two, three times more dangerous

if you want to look at the figures. when it comes to migration issues, we do have a problem and we do need to address it but stop playing defense on the one yard-line, which is the u.s.-mexico border. we need to extend the perimeter where to work with partners, mexico, central america, south american countries to make sure that we provide that perimeter and stop folks before they come over to our border itself. this bill has some very outdated strategies and one of them i know doesn't work and i call that the 14th century solution to a 21st century problem which is the border wall. we intend to spend $2.1 billion on a wall that doesn't -- if ths

where the border fence is at. if i can show south texas as an example, you will see that on south texas, you have a fence and you see the heat map. we have a fence here, fence here, fence here, fence there and so on, but the activity is where the fence is at. let me explain why. in you look at the fence, we have a river. the middle of the river is u.s. boundary with mexico. we don't have a fence there. if you look at the river banks, we don't have a fence there also because it's going to get washed away. what we do is we actually put a fence about a quarter of a mile and sometimes even a half a mile away and what happens, you see

the fence here, the one in the reddit self and you see the river over here. instead of having a fence over here, it's actually a mile away. so therefore, what happens when you have this situation? first of all if you are asking for asylum like most people are asking, you are going to see people that will touch the river bank. they walk half a mile or quarter of a mile to the fence over here and ask for asylum. does the fence stop them? no, it doesn't. if you ask all the land owners, you are ceding thousands and thousands and thousands of acres of good farming land, good ranching land away because you put the border in the rivers over here. if you want to stop drugs, we need to put more money -- we added more money for technology but add it at the ports of entry

where the meth, fentanyl and cocaine are coming instead of through this particular area. again this bill has no funding for usdis to reduce the backlog of the migration. we aren't putting resources and we have to make sure that we help the folks that are trying to come in the legal way itself. we do lose a lot of opportunities. we can do a lot more to add money to counter the fentanyl. and again, most drugs come in through the ports of entry and put the focus. we should have an updated border security improvement plan. so again, i want to work with my good friend, mr. joyce. we are going to be together later on in the process. i know we got some disagreements but we'll get that. and i hope we have a good

bipartisan bill at the end of the process. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlelady is recognize dollars. >> i rise in support of the fiscal 2024 homeland security appropriations bill that will help secure our border. since president biden took office there have been six million illegal immigrant encounters at our southern border. because of president biden open border policies we have seen countless illegal immigrants, violent gang members and sex offenders released into the homeland. we are doing what president biden won't. we are securing the border. i have been to the border. we have spoken with law

enforcement on the front lines. these brave men and women told us that this administration has undercut them at every turn and needed more resources to deter illegal immigration rather than incentivize. while the pleas have fallen on deaf ears at the white house, we have heard them loud and clear. for every state as a result of these policies have become a border state. we are restoring technology funding to its highest level. and boardier patrol agents that c.b.p. requested and starting border wall construction instead of letting those materials russ -- rust away on the side of the road. we are providing funding to deport illegal immigrants. our southern border is a lawless

free-for-all undermining the safety of every american. this will secure the border and keep america safe. shut down our border and move this bill forward. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. joyce: yes, sir. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, distinguished democratic leader, mr. jeffries. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished the gentleman from from the state of texas and laredo for yielding and his continued leadership and i have great respect for the distinguished the gentleman from ohio, the chair of the subcommittee and the top democrat on the appropriations committee from connecticut.

at the beginning of this congress, house democrats made it clear that we are willing, ready and able to find common ground with the other side of the aisle, our republican colleagues, whenever and wherever possible, to ameri americans. on the issues that consume the american people. that we were september to washington to work on that president biden has made progress on with house and senate democrats, but of course this bill has more work to be done. from the beginning of this congress, house democrats have made clear, we are willing, ready and able to find common ground with the other side of the aisle to make progress for the american people. . . we've also made clear we're going to fight extremism whenever necessary.

and we are headed toward an extreme maga republican government shutdown. in just a few it. we can pass a bill right now that will continue to fund the government if a way that makes sense for the american people. that will provide funding at the fiscal 2023 levels for six weeks, beginning on october 1. to give us time for the appropriations process to run its course. to find an agreement, to fund the government in a bipartisan way. the continuing resolution right now pending before the senate, strongly bipartisan, that doesn't contain any of the extreme policy poison pill riders that house republicans

have been trying to jam down the throats of the american people, but have no part in any bipartisan agreement, particularly when we are with a possible government shutdown. and it's a continuing resolution that also meets the needs of everyday americans by providing robust funding for the americans who have been adversely impacted by extreme weather events all across america, in blue states and in red states, because extreme weather events aren't partisan in nature and we should be there for the people of florida and california and hawaii and vermont and the northeast and the midwest and the deep south, everyday americans who have been impacted by extreme weather events. that's what the bipartisan continuing resolution pending in the senate will do, and it will allow the ukrainian people to continue their brave, valiant and courageous effort to push

back against illegal russian brutal, violent aggression. so we have a bipartisan continuing resolution working its way through the senate that meets the needs of the american people, that has input from those of us in this chamber and that will pass if it reached the floor of this chamber that would avoid an extreme maga republican shutdown. just yesterday a bipartisan group in the senate voted i believe 77-19 to advance this bipartisan continuing resolution. it will reach the floor of the house in a few days. and the question is, what will the house republican majority do? there are only two paths forward. allow that bipartisan continuing resolution that meets the needs of the american people to

receive an up or down vote, and it will pass and we will avoid a shutdown. or refuse to allow that bill to receive an up or down vote and stick the american people with an extreme maga republican government shutdown that will hurt children, hurt families, hurt seniors, hurt veterans, hurt everyday americans and hurt the economy. and if we find ourselves dealing with an extreme maga republican shutdown, what will it all be for? well, this week is very revealing. because we're considering bills, including the one that is before us right now, that have zero chance of becoming law. zero chance. and they're filled with extreme policy poison things like criminalizing abortion care, slashing public

school funding, taking food out of the mouths of women, infants and children, hurting the ability of veterans and seniors to meet and make ends meet. that's why the government will shut down. because extreme maga republicans have determined that you want to try to jam your right-wing ideology down the throats of the american people. and if we don't pay that ransom note, you want to shut the government shut the government down twice, demanding that we slash and burn medicaid. well, that government shutdown

ended with an unconditional vendor because the american people were un-- surrender because the american people were unwilling to pay that ransom note to slash and burn medicaid. so the same thing happened in 2013, when the tea party forced a reluctant john boehner to shut the government down for 14 days. what was the extreme ransom note demand at the -- tended the same way -- then again in 2018, into 2019, another -- at the time, that the

american taxpayer be forced to pay billions and billions of dollars to fund a medieval, ineffective border wall that donald trump wanted to make happen. and that government shutdown ended exactly the same way after 35 days. unconditional surrender because the american people were unwilling to pay that extreme ransom note. so why are we going through this exercise again? when we know it's going to end the same way. because the american people are not willing, not willing to pay a ransom note that will allow my extreme republican colleagues to criminalize abortion care or to cut social security or to slash public school funding or to take food out of the mouths of women, or infants or children.

that's not a ransom note that will ever be paid. and you have a bipartisan vehicle coming out of the senate that will be before the house in a few days and there's only one responsible course of action. house democrats are prepared to support that bipartisan agreement so we can avoid a government shutdown that will hurt the american people. and the only question is will our republican colleagues join us? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i do reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from georgia three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. joyce, for yielding. and, mr. speaker, you know, as a member of congress, our job description up here is real short. it's take care of your constituency and it's to have

oversight of the federal government. and we do that through things called appropriations and hearings. appropriations is what we're working on right now. well, i want to tell you, the past nine months i've been out here crossing this country, attending field hearings. i've also been speaking with and listening to members of our industries about the overreach and the out-of-control government agencies that we have up here. and that's why i rise today, i rise today to speak about an important issue that sadly this bill is going to fail to address. you see, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration's boat speed limiter proposed rule, which by the way, noaa is an unauthorized federal agency, never authorized by congress, but noaa's rule limits the speed now of all boats 35 feet and longer to 10 knots.

and this is up and down almost the entire eastern seaboard. they're doing this to -- in claims that this rule is necessary to save the north atlantic whale, which by what i've been able to find, they've been able to maintain roughly the same population since the 1980's. so i just wanted to go over a few quick facts. now, approximately 15 last 18 -y 63,000 registered boats in this 35 to 65-foot length. y'all, they're one in a million in a million chances that you're going to hit one of these what's. and if you do, you're going to come out on the short -- whales. and if you do, you're going to come out on the short end of the stick and you're going to know it. but this is what's going to happen. this is going to have an $84 billion economic impact just on

the west coast. 340,000 jobs will be impacted. and that's also on the east coast. you see, this rule, it's not just going to cripple the boating and sport fishing industry, it's going to crush it. and it's also going to crush and kill the communities that support them. now, i offered an amendment to prohibit the coast guard from enforcing this rule because, you know, i think our coast guard's got a whole lot more important things to be out there doing. but sadly my amendment was not made in order and so therefore, mr. speaker, i stand today and i urge my colleagues to fight, to fight for language that's going to prevent the coast guard from enforcing this misguided rule during our conference committee. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. mr. joyce: yes.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: mr. chair, i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: the homeland security appropriations bill before us weakens our national security, defunds border security, harms the homeland security work force, and leaves americans vulnerable to escalating disasters. that we are debating this bill on september 27, three days before the end of the fiscal year, when house republicans have provided no path forward to keep our government open, is irresponsible. the house majority's exhibited their own inability and unwillingness to govern, by ensuring this bill cannot become law, without other partisan

legislation moving first. but it cannot become law. rather than voting to keep our government open and ensuring border protection officers and immigration officials get paid, republicans are pursuing a path explicitly designed to shut down the federal government. a shutdown will have consequences for every american family. and on the border and border communities. mr. speaker, democrats do not support an open border, but let me be unequivocal. there is a crisis on our southern border. our border communities are struggling with the influx of immigration. the status quo cannot be maintained. that much we agree on. where the majority and minority differs is how we address this issue. we must continue to invest in our processing facilities and in transportation and medical care. we need to have an effective process of determining who is eligible to enter the country and who is not. and we must continue to invest

into our technology and our immigration and border security officials and invest in immigration judges. but we must also think bigger, broader, bolder. we cannot hope to resolve this issue if we only begin addressing it right at the border. we must invest in our partnerships with latin american countries and fund the expansion of safe mobility offices. our republican colleagues refuse to negotiate with democrats on these issues. we were kept on the sidelines and thus this bill does not make the sound investments that would actually reduce the burden on our border facilities and our communities. this bill misses important opportunities to address the dire opioid crisis that we face as a nation. it provides insufficient funding for our ports of entry, where the vast majority of these drugs enter our country. we should be focusing resources

where we agree they are needed most, like combating fentanyl crossing the border, helping our border communities, advancing our cybersecurity posture, protecting americans from violent extremism, and foreign adversaries. i'm also deeply concerned about the conditions that greet migrants and asylum seekers. people who leave their homes out of desperation and necessity. we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of these migrants, especially children. and to provide resources and provide resources because those who are entitled to stay can please do so. by law the united states is required to take in unaccompanied children from neighboring countries. screen them, house them and provide safe placement. this bill leaves disasters.

-- to not fully fund the transportation security agency personnel. house republicans claim to care about oversight but has proposed several cuts to homeland security which is critical to the scroafer sight of immigration facilities. this shifts burdens of costs to an already backlogged and overwhelmed system. we know -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. cuellar: i will give her an extra minute. ms. delauro: the enactment of appropriations will require bipartisan agreement on sound investments, not reckless cuts and reckless policy riders. we need to keep the government open. there is a bipartisan bill in the senate that we are now

debating. 77-19, overwhelmingly bipartisan that will come here. let's put that bill up and get bipartisan support on this floor. don't close the government down. i yield back. mr. cuellar: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i yield to the friend and gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meuser, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meuser: i thank chairman joyce, my good friend and colleague from ohio very much. i do rise in support of the homeland appropriations bill. we all know that our country, our citizens are in dire need of a stronger homeland security. we know that we have an unmitigated, unmitigated, mr. speaker, disaster at our

borders. three years ago, mr. speaker, we also know that our borders weren't secure. today almost 10,000 illegals in despair are crossing our borders, not including the so-called got-aways, human trafficking, deadly drugs. killing our americans, primarily young people by the tens of thousands. this bill adds to our customs and border patrol, mr. speaker. provides for border barriers which work, and for fentanyl detection. strengthens our asylum laws and forces secretary mayorkas to do his job. it ceases the ability of h.h.s. to send ghost flights into my district in the middle of the night. can't happen anymore under this bill. this bill provides for our coast

guard and eliminates $500 million in go-green initiatives that have absolutely nothing to do with homeland security, mr. speaker. this bill is a vote for our nation's homeland security. a no vote, well, that's a vote for the status quo. mr. speaker, by the way, if we want to keep our government open, we government open and reasonable fiscal sanity with some moderate spending reductions. if we have -- we have a handful of republicans on our side not supporting it, but every single democrat does not support securing our border and moderate reductions to our outrageous spending taking place. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i yield one 1/2 minutes to the the gentlemanfrom maryland, mr. trone. mr. trone: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank to the gentleman from texas. here we are three days from a government shutdown, voting again on extreme republican-led bills that do knowing, nothing to prevent it. the ink wasn't even dry on the bipartisan debt ceiling bill deal before republican leadership, leadership, not leadership, renigged on the word and their promise. the bills we are considering this week include disastrous funding cuts and culture war priorities, priorities that play well in fundraising emails but

fail to address our nation's problems like the opioid crisis. this would dedicate $2 billion to build a border wall, sixth century solution to 21st century problem especially considering 90% of the fentanyl comes through the border at legal points of entry driven by american citizens. i find this unbelievable. across the board republicans undercuts our ability to take care of america and build a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. about time the republicans put the needs of the majority over the wild few and pass a government funding bill that meets america's needs. campaign season is over.

it's time to govern. i urge my colleagues to reject this hyper partisan bill and pass the bipartisan senate bill. i yield back. mr. cuellar: mr. chair, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from illinois. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> as a proud daughter of immigrants, the wife of a dreamer, the representative of a district, proud of its immigrants and how they contribute to our economy i'm disgusted with republicans' scapegoating of immigrants. we should be looking ways

forward to provide essential service, republicans want to play games with lives and livelihoods with their inability to load. they are repeating false claims that the border is open and conditioning government funding and irresponsible requests that will neither make the border more secure. there is a difference between us. this party of fiscal responsibility is driving us to a shutdown while immigrants supposedly are contributing to our downfall are paying taxes. with 11 more million more immigrants to boost our economy. people are tired of the political theater. let's recognize the positive contributions of immigrants and do the work that they sent us here to do. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. cuellar: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio.

mr. joyce: i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grothman: they said the vast majority of fentanyl comes from designated points of entry and you hear that said. but the reason, i think what they should say is the vast amount of fentanyl that we catch comes from designated points of entry. there are depending on the month, 30,000 or 40,000 who are got-aways, we never catch them and no one is monitoring them. so clearly, if you want to sneak fentanyl, you do it between designated points of entry and not show up in any statistics because we don't catch those people. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: i yield one minute

to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman and again, i said i would come to the floor and each time would say that i do not want a government shutdown. i don't want the american people to suffer. and i want the government to be able to function. as an almost 20-year member of the authorizing committee, homeland security, i am stunned at the lack of concern that my friends on the other side of the aisle would have on a government shutdown on homeland security. these are extensive government employees, many of them represented by the american federation of government employees. t.s.o.'s would continue to work in the transportation administration, but so many will be working without

compensation. if we are concerned about the border, i don't know why the southwest border initiative is out, why money for that is eliminated and opportunities for shelter services are eliminated when we realize throngs of people are coming here that are having the ability to apply for asylum. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. cuellar: an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: the answer is to give ourselves more time to address the question of serving the american people. i rise as the leader did, to support the bipartisan senate continuing resolution, which maintains current funding, takes care of communities impacted by natural disasters and provides funding to ukraine and contains no poison pills. if we are serious about doing the job of keeping this government open, supporting

hardworking american workers, we will support the senate continuing resolution tomorrow and save this nation. do not shut down. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves? mr. cuellar: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: i am prepared to close. we have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: mr. chair and my good colleague, mr. joyce. i know we are going to get together, but i do want to remind some of our colleagues, we had the opportunity on the current bill that we have right now, we added $2.4 billion, that's a 15% increase for border patrol agents, pay increases, add more border patrol agents.

c.b.p., the other folks in. we had the money to do that. but at the end of the day and i just take one example, we gave money to homeland, 15% increase, yet there is only two members where we all vote on the republican side that actually supported the appropriations bill. homeland, so if we care so much about homeland, why do we vote no on the final appropriations bill. i'm voting no on this one. but on the final one, i will support the final appropriations bill. as the leader said, mr. jeffries, democrat leader said, look, we have three days to work this out. and passing this bill to the senate it's not going to get there. i would like to remind members we ought to be working on preventing the shutdown.

if you look at the shutdowns we have had, 1995, it was a house republican that had a five-day shutdown. that was november 13. on december 15, 1995, another republican-led house with 21 days of a shutdown. on september 30, 2013, again for 16 days, it was the house-republican-led allowed to shutdown, january 19, 2018, another house republican-led house and it was the shutdown for two days and then on december 21, 2018, it was another house republican shutdown for 34 days. so again, i hope that on saturday or on sunday at 12:01, it isn't another republican-led

shutdown. we are asking you give us input, sit down and let's talk about it. i have a lot of respect for you and your staff and do this together. we will be voting no on this, but at the end of this process, we will be voting together on this. thank you for that. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: gentleman yields. mr. joyce: i thought we were here to talk about the homeland security appropriations bill. and i look forward to having further discussions. and i yield back. . . . the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 118-216. amendments en bloc described in section 66 house resolution 7 --

6 of house resolution 723 and pro forma amendments described in section 13 of that resolution. each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon. shall not be subject to amendment except provided by section 13 of house resolution 723, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it shall be in order for the chair of the committee on appropriations to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as he read, shall be debatable for -- as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by

section 13 of house resolution 723, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. during consideration of the birl for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments, each at any point for the purpose of debate. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. joyce: pursuant to house resolution 723, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 printed in part b of house report 118-216 offered

by mr. joyce of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from ohio, mr. joyce, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. joyce: thank you, mr. speaker. this bipartisan en bloc amendment before you is comprised of 23 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this en bloc contains proposals that would strengthen the underlying bill. i want to highlight just a few. the en bloc will provide additional funding to bolster investigations for exploited children with secret service and homeland security investigations. it would increase the nonintrusive inspection equipment at c.b.p. ports of entry to improve detection of fentanyl and other opioids that plague communities across our country. it would also increase funding for fema grant programs, for firefighters and other first responders and for the physical security for nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attack. lastly, i want to highlight a

proposal that would strengthen our national urban and search rescue response system. i was on the ground in maui last month and learned firsthand the critical roles these teams play in saving lives and protecting communities in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. the base bill includes a modest increase for this program, but i strongly support to you further increase funds for this federal asset. again, i'd like to thank my colleagues for their participation in this process and i urge members to support this bipartisan en bloc. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chair. i support this amendment. it contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of the members' priorities on both sides. and this is the way we ought to do it. bipartisan. and certainly i have no objection and encourage the adoption of this amendment because it supports shared priorities, including counter-fentanyl detection,

border patrol checkpoints and ports of entry, investigations for missing and exploited children and more technology for the front line officers and agents and i support this and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. wagner, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. wagner: i thank the chairman for yielding and i thank the ranking member for his support of this amendment also. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment, which has been included in the bipartisan en bloc for the department of homeland security appropriations bill. last year there were over 32 million reports of online child sexual abuse material previously referred to as child pornography. that is an 89% increase since 2019 and equals over 87,000 reports per day of images and

videos of children, children, mr. speaker, being raped and sexually exploited, spreading across the internet. homeland security investigations or h.s.i. is on the front lines fighting to locate and rescue these vulnerable children and apprehend their abusers. my amendment would ensure that h.s.i. receives the fully offset $24 million that they requested to investigate -- the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i yield two minutes to the gentleman maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the financial services and general government subcommittee, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the chairman has indicated he supports this en bloc amendment. i support that as well. i do not support the bill. i want to speak on the bill. i rise today to speak against the majority's inability or unwillingness to govern. take your pick. republicans have had nine months to pass all their spending bills. they passed one. now they're struggling to pass the rest, 96 hours before the government shuts down. it is the theater of the absurd. they did not merely sit on their hands, they actively slowed down this process with manufactured debt limit crisis, an illegitimate impeachment inquiry and the meaningless message bills that will never become law.

wasting our time with these pointless proposals is not just inept, irresponsible and idiotic, it is dangerous. it is costly. it is unwarranted. this bill is supposed to be about homeland security. we can have a legitimate debate about that. instead, however, this bill, this entire process makes our nation less secure and for what? a laundry list of far-right poison pills that prevent congress from addressing the challenges at hand. how much time is spent on these pointless and negative and unacceptable provisions of these bills other than what these bills actually are supposed to do? do we want to pad the ego of some extreme right-wing members or pay the border agents and service members who protect

america? do we indulge in pet lent tan -- petulent tantrums -- petulant tantrums or uphold our oath of office? do we want to keep our government functioning for the people? a shutdown isn't a comingle to score political points. it's a consequence of failed governance that should be avoided at all costs. republicans, the majority of whom do not want this path to be followed, should say no -- may i have one additional minute? mr. cuellar: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i believe the majority of republicans don't want to go down this path. but i say to the majority of the republicans, shut them up. let's have a bipartisan -- we'll

have an overwhelming vote, as we did with the debt limit. over 300 of us voted to do the rational, necessary thing. we can do that again. how sad that we're not doing it. republicans ought to have learned by now, after shutting down the federal government for 81 days since 1995, costing the american people billions of dollars and the confidence of the american people and our allies abroad. i fear they are about to add to that shameful tally. i'd like another 30 seconds, is it possible? mr. cuellar: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. loir hoyer i -- mr. hoyer: i thank you so much for that generosity. i urge republicans to work with us to pass a clean continuing resolution just as mitch mcconnell and 26 republicans did yesterday. they haven't gotten it to us yet, there's one republican holding it up. stop holding america hostage,

start holding your members accountable. govern as if americans are depending upon us. because they are. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. cuellar: mr. chair, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: yes, mr. speaker. thank you. i believe we're on the bipartisan en bloc amendment. and to that point, i'd like to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from missouri for an encore performance on yet another amendment, mrs. wagner, for one minute this time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. wagner: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my amendment to direct customs and border patrol -- protection to eliminate the serious delay in trusted traveler program application processing time known as global entry. i've heard from so many frustrated constituents who have paid for global entry, a $100 up front processing fee, not cheap, only to wait months in some

cases for c.b.p. to approve them for an interview. and those who succeed in getting to that point are finding that there are simply no interview slots available. today global entry processing time averages 11 months. this is utterly unacceptable. my amendment will direct c.b.p. to do its job and get the situation and backlog under control. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: mr. chair, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment supporting the department of homeland security implementation of the women, peace and security act, which was passed in 2017 and, relevant to the debate today, recognizes that women bear the brunt of harm during disasters

and, importantly, they can play an essential role in responding and preventing them. whether it's a hurricane, a flood, a fire, a refugee seeking asylum, evidence shows that women are more often vulnerable during disasters and crises that the department responds to and, sadly, there's more gender-based violence and often more responsibility for care put on women to provide for their families. our amendment ensures that gender perspectives are included in the d.h. responses to crises, to ensure that the needs of women and their families are met. they have the resources they need to recover, and ensure that d.h.s. is taking steps to prevent these outcomes in the first place. it also recognizes the impact of women's participation, the amendment supports efforts to increase the number of women in law enforcement, senior d.h.s. leadership, including staffing,

programming and research, and department-wide training. when women are at the table, when decisions are made and on the ground to prevent and respond to disaster, outcomes are better for women and for their communities. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. cuellar: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: yeah. i'll reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: mr. chair, i reserve 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. menendez. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. speaker, i rise today to advocate for the chemical facility anti-terrorism standards program, often referred to as cfats, and support of my amendment included in the en bloc to improve training for the facility inspectors who advance this critical work. since 2007, cfats harvetion he s

helped thousands of facilities reduce onsite risk. i'm particularly invested in the program because there are four facilities covered by the program in new england's eighth congressal -- new jersey's eighth congressional district which is also home to what homeland security experts call the two most dangerous miles in america. so for my constituents, it is vitally important to ensure that these facilities, their workers and the surrounding communities are adequately protected. two months ago this chamber passed a re-authorization of the cfats program to prevent its lapse at the end of july. unfortunately our colleagues in the senate have not advanced this critical national security priority as the program has lapsed. we're no longer able to inspect the more than 3,000 high-risk chemical facilities covered by this program and four security measures at those facilities or vet individuals who are seeking to access dangerous chemicals. it is also critical that the it is critical that the cfats program is fully fund.

my amendment includes funding for improved training and inspectors. this builds on my earlier work to update the cfats program and improve training for th facility inspectors. our facility inspectors deserve our full support so they can continue to do their best work to keep us safe. i'll continue to fight for this funding as we move forward. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. cuellar: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grothman: first of all, one comment on the people who are more lakely to be victims of violence in a natural disaster. just doing a quick google search i noticed that 80% of the murder victims in this country are men.

maybe the men are getting killed when the weather is good. i don't know. in any event, as chairman of the subcommittee on national security, the border, and foreign affairs i have had the opportunity to go to the border several times. it amazes me what a good job dogs do at detecting drugs coming across our southern border. they're not only able to detect drug they detect explosive, money, even human beings being trafficked or smuggled. we wonder if k-9 units are so effective why not expand their use along the southern border? to find the answer to this question my amendment would express the need for a study on the expanded use of k-9 units along the southern border. i would appreciate if that amendment were included thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida,

distinguished ranking member of military construction and veterans fairs subcommittee, ms. wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlelady is is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to express grave concern that the majority has included in the homeland security appropriations bill a cut to the nonprofit security grant program. which in the face of the grave and significant threats against nonprofit organizations across this country, rising threats toward religious and other nonprofit institutions, these cuts will likely have a profound impact on the safety of our community across the country and on florida and our community in particular. we strive to foster an open and safe environment in our communities and houses of worship, in line with the core value of welcoming the stranger. but according to the department of homeland security, the f.b.i. and ctc, faith environments are

more susceptible to violence. we are going the wrong direction in this bill. the amendment to increase the amount of funding provided for nonprofit security grants is critical at a time of increased vulnerability to threats of hate-motivated violence by domestic extremists. the house should be increasing funding for religious institutions and at-risk nonprofit organization, not cutting them and putting more people at risk. shame on you if you don't increase the bottom line number. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i reserve at this time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: this is a bipartisan amendment, i support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendments ep bloc offered by the gentleman from ohio.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 2 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment 6 will not be offered. it is new in order to consider amendment number eight printed in part b of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i rise to offer amendment number 8 as the designee of mr. nehls of texas. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in part b of house

report 118-216, offered by mr. san it is of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from new york, mr. santos, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. santos: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would reestablish the victims of immigration crime engagement office, also known as the voice office, within the department of homeland security. in 2017, president donald j. trump, the greatest president of my lifetime, established the voice office. its mission was to provide support for the victims and family members of crimes committed by illegal aliens. also known as angel famris -- families. and to hold criminal illegal aliens accountable for those heinous actions. american citizens should never have to pay the price for biden's owner border policy.

sadly angel families are becoming all too common. just recently, a family member was killed in texas. by the stroke of a pen the biden administration converted the voice office in 2021, instead of helping -- instead of helping criminal illegal aliens. let me repeat that, mr. chairman. an office intended to help families who had fallen victim to criminal illegal aliens, individuals who had and should never have been here in the first place is now helping those very same criminals. secretary mayorkas himself said, and i quote, all people, regardless of their immigration status, should be able to access victims services without fear, and i close quote, at the u.s. tax dollar expense. what part of america first do democrats not understand, mr. speaker? when the voice office was fully operational, it assists thousands of angel families,

connected them to crucial services and worked to hold criminal illegal aliens accountable for their heinous actions. it is a shame that the voice office must exist but until the biden border crisis and full-scale release of criminal aliens is stopped, angel families need this support. to my democrat colleagues, mark my words. if you haven't already, you or someone you know will reap the consequences of an open border. and you will wish you had the support offered by the voice office. i hope my colleagues across the aisle will start to put america first. i urge adoption of my amendment. thank you and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: i oppose this amendment. there are already avenues for victims of crime to engage with

both the department of homeland, the victims' engagement various line or the department of justice, the office of victims of crime. so the department of homeland has protection for victims and the department of justice also has the office of victims of crime. this office would be duplicative of those efforts and would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars. we're already doing offenses. again, i want to make sure i don't care where the attack came from. i want to support the victims, i want to support the victims, and that's what the department of justice office of victims does,

let's support that office and provide more funding. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. santos: i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. santos: we already have the service and it's supported. the problem i find is taking this office and converting it into with a mechanism to support the same people we were supposed to give refuge to our victims from. so i urge my colleague to come clean and come to the table and tell the american people, why does he oppose funding another office to help victims on a very targeted basis instead of funding the office to actually go help the people that are causing harm and the purpose of why the office was raised. so mr. chairman, i find it troubling that we can't simply put america first when it comes down to discussing the other side of the aisle. so it's a sad day for america

and it's very unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't see the necessity to protect angel families. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. cuellar: mr. chairman, i'm ready to close. with that, i would just say, i oppose this amendment because again the department of justice office of victims of crime supports everybody. they don't ask you whether the crime came in. they'll support you. this office would be duplicative. those efforts would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. let the vims engagement service office, the office of victims i'crime do their job. let's make sure that they get the support and with that, i oppose the -- this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. rei mr. mccormick. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will remedical report the amendment. clip amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 116- 118-216. mr. mccormick: i rise to offer my amendment number 10 to h.r. 4367, to the homeland security proppings bill for fiscal year 2024. amendment 10 will increase the amendment of funds withheld from the office of secretary d.h.s. if it does not submit the state of the border report and the

report on detention facilities by the designated time required by law. agencies have a strong and problematic tendency to ignore or loosely follow congressionally man tait red ports. this amendment would put pressure on d.h.s. to provide tease reports in a timely manner. with the ongoing crisis at the u.s.-mexico border it is vital congress receives accurate and up to date information from the agencies. a cornerstone of any nation is its boundaries. border defines where one government ends and another begins. it denotes the separation between two distinct peoples, cultures and languages. without a border, we have in nation. we have no sovereignty. in the first half of september alone, that's only two weeks, u.s. border authorities had more than 142,000 encounters at the u.s.-mexico border. fentanyl seizures at the border increased 164% from 2020 to

2022. this year, there have been over 21,000 pounds of ninlt confiscated. we have had over 110,000 overdose deaths just this last year. as an e.r. doctor who treated overdoses every shift last year, somebody who could not revive four of my patients from an overdose, i take this very personally. this season the only public health consequence of an open border. whether it's tuberculosis, measles, covid, which many of the members of the opposing party are so concerned about, there's no way to ensure that those crossing the border do not bring these disease intas our country. this doesn't even address the chronic problem, congestive heart failure, kidney failure, cancer, which the people will come to the e.r. for and you'll wait behind them in order to pay their bills. the biden administration has

ignored the rule of law and refused to secure our border. not only will president biden not do what's nest to stop the flow of migrants and drugs but encourages problems by using mandatory parole as loophole to bring in up to 30,000 migrants each month from central and south america. many of those individuals crossing the boarders are coming to make a better life for themselves. however, too many of them have ties to terrorist organizations and dangerous criminal cartels. worse yet, the biden administration has last count of 85,000 children. our open border is giving child exploitation industry a huge boost. we must secure the southern border. it's not just a bipartisan problem. not just a bicameral problem. it's an american problem. i urge my colleagues to support amendment number 10. for a better accountability of d.h.s. to provide congress with the information needed to make the right decisions for america.

with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: i understand what my colleague is talking about. we want to address border issues but we've got to make sure we address it in the right way. i'll talk about the report. in fact, i'll be happy to tell you i often get frustrated sometimes when we don't get reports. i'll be happy to work with you and with the chairman, also, to get that report. but i'll tell new the bill already there's a $25 million hole for this report. so you add another $10 million, does that make the pain more painful? does that make the action -- again, keep in mind this account

doesn't just fund you're ocracy but suicide measures and funds child welfare and tender age kids in d.h.s. custody and funds the office for civil rights, also. i agree, i get frustrated when we don't get the report. add another $30 million or another $40 million. will that get you there? you mentioned the border. keep in mind we are concerned. i want to make sure to control the border. if you want to stop drugs as one of the colleagues said again, most drugs come through ports of entry but we're not putting the emphasis on ports of industry. we need to do a lot more, more k-9's and more technology. if you look at the people here illegally, i'd like to remind everybody the number one violator for visa overstays that have been over millions over the years has been canada p. i don't hear none of you about putting up a wall between the united

states and canada. i say that again because we've got to be smart on how we address it. i appreciate it. i invite you down to the border and love when people come in and spend a few hours. i live there and i will tell you, and i'll take the biggest cities in your state and say if you take atlanta, and i'll take the border la raido -- laredo, murder, rape, assault, we have lower crime rates per 1,000 in the city. if you look at the national crime rate for murders, the border crime rate is lower. we have to look at crime as one issue and then look at migration. i'm with you. i hate open borders and i want to make sure we work together but we've got to do this in a bipartisan way. i feel your frustration. there are some reports i wish we could get faster p. i will work with you and the chairman and get this report to you. for those reasons, i would say i oppose your amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. mccormick: i want a timely report and accurate report and want it as as he we've agreed. one thing we've noticed is the agencies act very well when we take away their money when they don't do what they're supposed to do. we cannot make the right decisions or arguments in front of the american public unless we have the complete and accurate information. this is just another tool to encourage the agency to do what they're already obligated to do for us anyways and that should be a bipartisan appeal, to do the right thing and to be punished if they do the wrong thing. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. mccormick: with that i'm prepared to close. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 118-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 11 printed in part b of house report 118-216 offered by mr. arrington of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 723, the gentleman from texas, mr. arrington, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. arrington: i rise to offer appropriations to the homeland security where we include house resolution 50 which affirms every sovereign state's right to self-defense. in the face of this unprecedented and unmitigated

humanitarian and security crisis. states do not have to be a passive victim of a failed federal government. and the federal government has failed because our commander in chief has failed to do his first and most important job, provide for the common defense. he's also failed to uphold the laws of the land. in fact, title 8 of u.s. code says no other citizen can induce people to break the law. it says you can't harbor people who have broken the law. in fact, it goes on to say if you're doing that you're aiding and abetting, law-breaking. i believe this administration has aided and abetted what i believe is an invasion by the drug cartels, pushing their poison into our country and into my state and our communities, killing our families and our friends at hundreds a day. it's the leading cause of death

in this country. and we have a president and a homeland security secretary with the audacity to say that this border is under operational control of the department of homeland security of these great united states. baloney. nobody believes it. i just got back from eagle pass. the chaos and lawlessness has never burned hotter. and the people of those border towns have never felt more abandoned. it is shameful that a country as great as the united states of america would surrender control of our border to paramilitary terrorist cartels. shameful! here's the good news. here's the saving grace for texas and every state in this country. they have the constitutional power of self-defense and it is

explicit and it is crystal clear in the constitution. when the states decided -- and by the way, the federal government didn't create the states. the sovereign states created the federal government and they made darn sure that in a situation like this where the federal government failed in their obligation to repel an invasion that they would maintain the authority to defend their border and their citizens from this chaos and the criminal elements that are just deluging our great lone star state. article 4, section 4 is the obligation of the federal government to repel an invasion for each and every state. and article 1, section 10 is clear, if there's an actual invasion or, or there is imminent danger such that would not permit delay.

now, i want my democratic colleagues to explain to me why the current conditions at the southern border on account of this administration's failures is not imminent danger to the citizens of texas such that will not permit delay, i stand with governor abbott and state leaders all along the southern border and everywhere in this country! stand up, fill the gap, enforce the laws, deport, secure the border, and for god's sakes protect the citizens of texas and all the good people of this country and restore law and order. we welcome the immigrant who wants a better life. we welcome the immigrant who wants a better future for their family. but we will only welcome those who respect our laws, our sovereignty and the safety of the american people.

that's where i stand, mr. chairman. and i can do no other, say no other, and i'm going to continue to stand on that until we get a change up here in washington or we have all resources deployed to do the job the federal government just apparently will not do on account, i believe, of a president who would rather placate and appease a fringe group in his party than to prioritize the safety of the american people. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. whatever that may be. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: i claim my time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: i rise in opposition of this movement. the u.s. constitution grants the federal government to secure the national borders and control

immigration. i would say we will do this in partnership working with the state and local government like we do with the program we called stone garden where we provide funding and that would be the way to do it. unfortunately, there are some states that want to go solo on doing certain things. let me give you an explanation. when the governor of the state of texas put the buoys, those buoys were less than a quarter of a mile for a river that's 1, 200 miles. so less than a quarter of a mile for a river that's 1, 200 miles long, it's like putting a postage stamp in the middle of the football field to stop a running back from crossing the 1-yard line. second thing is when the governor has talked about stopping every truck like he's doing, what he's doing is he says he suspected every truck -- but the only power -- i used to do the budget and the only thing they can do is check license

plates, check driver's license, check the brakes and windshield wipers. they can't even open the trucks. but what they're doing in eagle pass and el paso and other places, they're stopping hundreds of millions of trade. but, again, we want to work with the state but you just can't go solo on this. and again, when you say lawlessness at the border, i would say in the state of texas, if you look at the most dangerous cities we have, none of them are the border. again, i'm not naming any of my texas cities but they're the big urban areas where murder, rape and assault is a lot higher than at the border rate. again, the border is safe when we talk about crime. on the issue of migration, i'm with you. we need to have repercussions but we need to put moneys outside the one yard line and put it on the 20 yard line and work with other countries. in fact, when you look at 2015

when president obama had the numbers go down, it was because mexico was stopping people. in 2019 when president trump was taking credit for stopping the numbers and having the lowest crossing, you know why? because we got mexico to do its job on the southern border. so again, we can either play defense on the 1-yard line or play defense on the 20-yard line and we've got to look at this in how we address it. so again, if you want to talk about crime, look at the big urban cities. do we want to make sure we secure the border? i'm with you. we've got to have repercussions and play defense outside of the 1-yard line. but again, we can't have the state go solo. they want to work with us, i love -- my brother was a d.p.s. officer for 27 years. i want to make sure that they work with us hand in hand and stone garden does that where we provide money to the cities and counties and the state. so we're on the same page. we're just looking at this in a

very different way, so to my good friend from my fellow state of texas, again, i'm with you, i just oppose this particular amendment. again, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas correct. mr. arrington: what's the balance of my time, mr. chairman? the chair: 15 seconds. mr. arrington: i love henry cuellar and couldn't have said more. more is said than done. texas, do your job, the constitution is behind you and so am i. god bless and go west texas. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. joyce: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under jurisdiction h.r. 4367 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4367 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to house resolution 723 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4368. will the gentleman from north carolina, mr. murphy, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4368 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for agricultural, rural development, food and drug administration and rerelated agency programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on the legislative day of tuesday, september 26, 2023, the amendment offered by the

gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part f of house report 118-216 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment 76, spartz of indiana, 78, bebert of colorado, 89 by boebert of colorado, 90 by good of virginia. 91 by good of virginia, 92 by good of virginia, 93 by good of virginia, 94 by good of virginia, 99 by mr. stauber of minnesota, 101 by miller of illinois, 102 by rosendale of montana. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time forlyny electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment 76 printed in part f of house report 118-216 by the gentlewoman from indiana, ms. spartz, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 76 printed in part f of house report 118-216, offered by ms. spartz of indiana. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. is off number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]