[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 120 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3504-H3515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 583 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2670.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) kindly resume the chair.

                              {time}  1420


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2670) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Bost (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today 
pursuant to House Resolution 582, the fifth set of en bloc amendments, 
printed in House Report 118-141 offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Rogers) has been disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 583, no further amendment to the bill, 
as amended, shall be in order except those printed in House Report 118-
142 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 
583.
  Each further 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, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  It shall be in order at that time for the chair of the Committee on 
Armed Services or his designee to offer the amendments en bloc 
consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. 
Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debated for 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective 
designees, shall not be subject to the amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Luna

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 1 as the designee 
of Mr. Williams of New York.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of subtitle C of title XVIII the following:

     SEC. 1859. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING RESEARCH IN CHINA.

       The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, the Secretary of Energy,

[[Page H3505]]

     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Transportation, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or any other 
     Federal agency may not directly or indirectly conduct or 
     support, through grants, subgrants, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements or other funding vehicles, research that will be 
     conducted by--
       (1) the Government of the People's Republic of China or any 
     agent or instrumentality of the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China or any entity owned by or controlled by the 
     People's Republic of China; or
       (2) the Chinese Communist Party or any agent or 
     instrumentality of the Chinese Communist Party or any entity 
     owned by or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Luna) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Chairman, to protect American interest, safety, and 
intellectual property, this amendment will end the corrupt practice of 
sending taxpayer dollars to the Chinese Communist Party.
  Our hard-earned money is going to Chinese research, infrastructure, 
and education, and these are the only destinations that we currently 
know about. American dollars are lost with no recuperation or 
retaliation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues across the aisle to support this 
commonsense amendment and support Mr. Williams' legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Greene of Georgia). The gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I oppose this broad reactionary and irresponsible 
amendment because it would harm U.S. interests and undermine scientific 
progress for the American people and the world.
  There is no question that the PRC poses real challenges to the United 
States and that it is engaged in technological and economic competition 
with us. We know that the PRC is engaged in harmful research to boost 
its military, that it engages in technology and IP theft. These are 
challenges worth tackling, and the Biden administration and Congress 
have taken steps to protect ourselves against these activities in 
effective and responsible ways.
  This amendment, however, goes entirely too far. When a careful and 
scalpel-like approach is needed to ensure we are not contributing to 
China's military or providing China with advanced and sensitive 
technology and know-how, this amendment uses a guillotine to cut off 
support for any form of research collaboration between the United 
States and China.
  As drafted, this amendment would prevent any U.S. funding of, 
contracting with, or partnership with any individual or entity 
connected to the PRC government. Let's be clear about what that would 
mean. This would prohibit collaboration with all the major public 
universities in China, endangering academic collaboration and research 
partnerships between U.S. and Chinese institutions.
  We should be worried about AI and supercomputing. This amendment 
would cut off collaboration on completely harmless and often very 
beneficial social science research on things such as poverty reduction 
and economic development.
  This amendment would make it harder for American academics and 
researchers to partner with the Chinese people, many of them who may 
not have any love for the CCP and would benefit from talking directly 
to and working with an American and learning about the freedoms and 
values that Americans enjoy.
  More critically, this amendment would cut off collaboration on 
medical research that could literally save lives of Americans and 
people around the world. Let me give you one example. Right now doctors 
and researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New 
York are collaborating with the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group to 
conduct shared clinical trials in hospitals in the United States and 
China to develop modern cancer drugs. We need to make sure this 
research collaboration happens in a safe and secure way, but why would 
we prohibit it? Why would we not want to work together to find a cure 
for cancer?
  Ultimately, we cannot and must not follow the Chinese Communist 
Party's example and close ourselves off to the world and the Chinese 
people. That is what they do. That is not what America does.
  Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, Communism, as well as any country that 
embraces that ideology, is a cancer upon this world and sometimes a 
guillotine is the only solution.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this 
incredible piece of legislation, and if you don't, that is on you.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I think the comments made by my 
colleague were perfectly appropriate. We have to deal with China and a 
whole series of issues, but to say that we should not collaborate with 
them on basic scientific research, that as was bluntly stated, could 
literally help us cure cancer is not something that is in our best 
interest.
  We also have to realize that China is a major factor in the world. We 
would like to get to a more peaceful relationship with them. Cutting 
off all contact doesn't make sense. Even at the height of the Cold War 
when we were aggressively trying to stand up to the Soviet Union, a 
bipartisan group of legislators kept dialogue up between the two 
countries.
  Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague that this amendment goes too 
far and I urge opposition.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Ms. Jacobs).
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, this is another amendment that is 
fearmongering about China when Republicans are continuing to actually 
undermine our national security by restricting and banning abortion.
  Our servicemembers volunteered to serve in our armed services. They 
didn't volunteer to give up their reproductive rights.
  I am thankful that DOD has taken steps to support servicemembers and 
their dependents' reproductive freedom by covering the travel and 
transportation costs for abortion and fertility care in the post-Roe 
era.
  Let's be clear: DOD's travel policy is consistent with the law. We 
shouldn't reverse this progress and take away our servicemembers' 
freedom when they have already sacrificed so much for us.
  In the 1 year since the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional 
right to an abortion, 20 States have restricted or banned abortion. 
This decision has disproportionately burdened our military families, 
who don't often choose where they are stationed. They can't freely take 
off days from work. Many can't afford to travel thousands of miles and 
pay out of pocket to receive the care they need and deserve, all 
because of the current statutory ban on DOD providing abortion 
services, which I strongly oppose.
  That is why DOD's travel policy has been so important. As one of the 
few women of reproductive age in Congress, I know how important access 
to abortion and fertility care is to our health, freedom, economic 
security, and empowerment.
  Taking away these fundamental rights doesn't just hurt these 
individuals. It hurts our military readiness, recruitment and 
retention, and morale, putting our national security in jeopardy.
  With many people having zero access to abortion services where they 
are stationed, our military's ability to adapt to evolving conflicts 
and challenges has been very compromised.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H3506]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not 
be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 3 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 4 will not be offered.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in subtitle A of title VII, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 7__. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT BY 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF EXPENSES RELATING TO 
                   ABORTION SERVICES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) consistent with section 1093 of title 10, United States 
     Code, the Department of Defense may not use any funds for 
     abortions except where the life of the mother would be 
     endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in 
     which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest;
       (2) the Secretary of Defense has no legal authority to 
     implement any policies in which funds are to be used for such 
     purpose; and
       (3) the Department of Defense Memorandum titled ``Ensuring 
     Access to Reproductive Health Care'', dated October 20, 2022, 
     is therefore unlawful and must be rescinded.
       (b) Repeal of Memorandum.--
       (1) Repeal.--The Department of Defense memorandum titled 
     ``Ensuring Access to Reproductive Health Care'', dated 
     October 20, 2022, shall have no force or effect.
       (2) Prohibition on availability of funds to carry out 
     memorandum.--No funds may be obligated or expended to carry 
     out the memorandum specified in paragraph (1) or any 
     successor to such memorandum.
       (c) Prohibition.--Section 1093 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Payment or Reimbursement of Certain 
     Fees.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may not pay for or 
     reimburse any fees or expenses, including travel expenses, 
     relating to a health-care professional gaining a license in a 
     State if the purpose of gaining such license is to provide 
     abortion services.
       ``(2) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `health-care professional' means a member of 
     the armed forces, civilian employee of the Department of 
     Defense, personal services contractor under section 1091 of 
     this title, or other individual who provides health care at a 
     military medical treatment facility.
       ``(B) The term `license' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1094 of this title.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, on behalf of myself, my fellow Texan Chip Roy, and over 
70 cosponsors, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in strong support of 
my amendment to repeal the Department of Defense's illegal and immoral 
abortion policy.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's historic Dobbs decision 
overturning Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration immediately set out 
to sidestep the Court's ruling and circumvent the law wherever 
possible.
  The Biden administration has encouraged every Federal agency to 
create rules and adopt policies that not only expand abortion access 
but also leave American taxpayers on the hook to subsidize abortion 
services.
  As evidence of this, in October of last year, the Secretary of 
Defense released a memo titled: ``Ensuring Access to Reproductive 
Health Care.'' This memo outlined the steps taken by the Department in 
order to use taxpayer dollars to provide servicemembers and their 
dependents access to abortions and allows for taxpayer dollars to be 
used so that healthcare providers can obtain the licensing required to 
perform such procedures.
  According to its illegal policy, which is now in place, DOD can and 
will reimburse travel expenses for servicemembers and their dependents 
who travel specifically to obtain an abortion in another State. The 
Department of Defense will also reimburse any associated fees for 
healthcare professionals seeking to be licensed in another State for 
the purpose of performing abortions--all on the taxpayers' dime.
  Last year, immediately after DOD started this unconstitutional and 
illegal process, Congressman Roy and I got to work on addressing this 
issue and developed a bill to right this wrong.
  This illegal Biden-endorsed policy has no place in our military. 
Taxpayer money provided to DOD is intended to provide for our national 
defense and our national security, not to promote and support the Biden 
administration's radical and immoral pro-abortion agenda.
  As mentioned, regardless of your political or personal stance on 
abortion, this policy is in direct violation of Federal law, 
specifically 10 U.S.C. 1093, which restricts funds made available to 
the DOD from being used for abortions.
  No doubt, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will insist 
that taxpayer dollars are not directly funding abortions, thereby 
rendering the current policy legally sound. This is an absolutely 
misleading claim. This taxpayer money is going directly to support 
abortions, and anyone in this Chamber who says differently is blatantly 
lying to the American people.
  Taxpayer funding of travel for abortion is, in fact, taxpayer-funded 
abortion. Abortion is the sole reason for these travel expenses, and 
this is in clear violation of existing law.
  My Democratic colleagues want to blame me, Senator Tuberville, and my 
colleagues like Congressman Roy for jeopardizing readiness. However, it 
is the Biden administration that has sidestepped existing law and given 
the Department permission to take this illegal action.
  This has left us with no choice but to take corrective measures and 
pass additional legislation. The days of the radical left ignoring the 
law and pushing their destructive social agenda in the military are 
done.
  I absolutely will not waver in my defense of the rule of law, 
therefore ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to kill innocent 
babies and, in doing so, also ensuring that our military servicemembers 
can focus on their jobs that they have in front of them and their 
families instead of being used for the political gain of the Biden 
administration.
  This amendment has over 70 cosponsors because we all recognize that 
the DOD is carrying out an illegal policy that is divisive, immoral, 
and does nothing to provide for our national defense or promote our 
national security.
  Madam Chair, I thank my friend, Congressman Chip Roy, for co-leading 
this amendment with me, for being a relentless defender of the law, and 
for being a true warrior in protecting the life of the unborn.
  I also thank the Military Personnel Subcommittee chairman,   Jim 
Banks, for his support of my amendment and his work on readying our 
servicemembers for the real threats that they face.
  Lastly, I thank Chairman Rogers for creating the strongest defense 
bill I have seen here in my time in Congress.
  Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
to repeal this outrageous and illegal policy and prevent any similar 
policy in the future.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in vehement opposition to the amendment 
proposed by Representative Jackson.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to thank the troops 
and talk about honoring their sacrifice, and that is all, frankly, 
empty words and broken promises if this amendment passes.
  This amendment puts servicewomen and military families' lives at risk 
by denying the basic right to travel for healthcare that is no longer 
available where they are stationed.
  Now that Iowa passed anti-abortion restrictions, 46 percent of 
servicewomen do not have access to abortion care. This would enact a 
dangerous healthcare travel ban.

[[Page H3507]]

  Servicemembers signed up to put their lives on the line for our 
freedoms, our national values, and our constitutional rights. They did 
not sign up to put their lives on the line or their spouses' lives on 
the line because they cannot get access to basic care.

  I was an officer in the Navy. What I learned was that good leaders 
protect their squadron. They don't abandon them in favor of their own 
politics or agenda.
  How am I supposed to recommend to young girls in my district that 
they should attend a service academy like I did when we know this 
amendment would mean that they would be signing away their right to 
basic healthcare?
  This amendment makes our servicewomen pawns in the majority's extreme 
agenda and is a steppingstone to larger bans, restrictions, and 
wholesale disregard for women's healthcare in America.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Houlahan), my good friend and a tireless champion for servicewomen.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I thank Representative Sherrill for 
yielding me time.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this harmful and dangerous 
amendment, a back door to a national ban on abortion.
  I also rise saddened and frustrated that we find ourselves here in 
this legislative body deciding whether or not we trust our women in 
uniform and our military families to make healthcare decisions for 
themselves.
  Let me say loud and clear, as someone who has worn the uniform, who 
had a child as an Active-Duty member, and who has a uterus, unlike many 
who are opining on this subject, I trust women to make the best 
decisions that they are able to for their own health and their 
families' health.
  It is insulting that we have to stand here and ask our colleagues to 
acknowledge our servicemembers' and military family members' bodily 
autonomy.
  I grew up in a military family, moving dozens of times. When I 
graduated and when the time came, I also raised my right hand.
  Today, that same woman stands before you perplexed. Why would any 
woman want to enlist when her fundamental freedoms and those of her 
family are no longer her own?
  The percentage of Active-Duty servicemembers who have no or severely 
restricted access to abortion is now 46 percent. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I thank Ms. Houlahan for her comments, and 
I strongly associate myself with the gentlewoman's remarks.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), 
one of our strongest advocates for women's healthcare.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today with my colleagues in 
opposition to this amendment, and I want to make sure that everyone 
understands what this amendment means. This amendment, plus other 
amendments that are the exact same in the Appropriations Committee, 
plus the same hold that is going on by Senator Tuberville, are putting 
culture wars ahead of national security.
  We understand that Mr. Jackson, the author of this amendment, is from 
Texas and that he supports an outright ban on all abortions, including 
for rape and for incest. We understand that he doesn't trust women. He 
certainly can't claim to care about recruitment into the military.
  What we cannot miss, though, is that this is part and parcel of a 
goal from a party that wants a Federal ban on abortion. It wasn't 
enough that we overturned Roe in our Supreme Court, and it doesn't 
matter if States like Michigan vote on their ballot to preserve Roe. 
The majority will not stop until there is a Federal ban where it won't 
matter what happens in States.
  Madam Chair, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I couldn't agree more with the 
gentlewoman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time 
remains.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Tenney). The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  DOD's abortion travel policy is a flagrant violation of the 
congressional intent and our Nation's moral principles. This policy is 
part of the Biden administration's politicization of the military. It 
is completely unnecessary, and it is clearly unlawful.
  Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Luna).
  Mrs. LUNA. Madam Chair, I want to start out by saying that I am a 
United States Air Force veteran and a woman who has been elected to 
Congress while pregnant who supports this because of the fact that not 
only does it completely attack our ability to be military ready, but 
when you are advocating for a servicemember to have a child ripped from 
their womb, they can't deploy.
  To say that this is constitutional in their argument and to say that 
Republicans are somehow attacking women in service because we support 
this is not only a lie, but it completely just destroys everything that 
this military stands for.
  Not only are there religious objections to taxpayers funding this 
type of stuff, but to say as a military servicemember that you would be 
somehow hurting someone's rights in the military because you stand with 
life is pretty bizarre to me.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Escobar), who is someone who not only fights for women in Congress but 
fights against her home State's draconian laws.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which, make no mistake about it, is the Republican Party's backdoor 
effort to create a national abortion ban.
  I represent El Paso, Texas, which is home to Fort Bliss, one of our 
country's premier military installations. I serve on the House Armed 
Services Committee, and I am a mother of two.

  My colleagues want to ensure that the enlisted women of the United 
States military and their family members who live in Republican States 
where abortion has been banned are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, 
even in the case of rape and incest.
  Unlike my Republican colleagues, I trust women, and unlike my 
Republican colleagues, I believe women have a place in the United 
States military and that it is our job to support them.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has the only time 
remaining.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I yield the remaining time to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who is my friend and a valued 
colleague and partner in this effort.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this extreme and 
misguided amendment.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, I fought alongside servicemembers from every 
race, gender, and political affiliation, and we had each other's backs. 
We still do. So, I will not sit quietly while people attack the rights 
of women who have stood up to serve this country. We owe them better 
than this.
  It is extreme, misguided, and inconsistent with the values of our 
Nation and our military.
  Madam Chair, as a standard-bearer of those values, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise to express my outrage at 
the far-right minority in this Congress attempting to force their 
extreme anti-abortion agenda onto what should be a bipartisan bill.
  We all know the Dobbs decision last year decimated abortion access, 
including for over half of active-duty female servicemembers. In 
response, the Department of Defense announced important changes to 
safeguard reproductive health care access.
  Amendment No. 5 aims to revoke those protections and push 
reproductive care further out of reach.
  It is a shame that MAGA Republicans can trust women to defend our 
nation on battlefields but refuse to trust them to make their own 
healthcare decisions.
  The military offers vast healthcare and educational benefits to 
service members. Women

[[Page H3508]]

continue to be the fastest growing demographic in the military, but 
restricting their rights tells them they're not welcome.
  If my colleagues care about personal freedom, they will vote NO on 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1445

  The Chair understands that amendment No. 6 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 7 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 8 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 9 will not be offered.


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subtitle A of title VII, add at the end the following:

     SEC. 714. PROHIBITION ON COVERAGE OF CERTAIN SEX REASSIGNMENT 
                   SURGERIES AND RELATED SERVICES UNDER TRICARE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after section 1076f the following new section (and 
     conforming the table of sections at the beginning of such 
     chapter accordingly):

     ``Sec. 1076g. TRICARE program: prohibition on coverage and 
       furnishment of certain sex reassignment surgeries and 
       related services

       ``(a) Prohibition.--The medical care to which individuals 
     are entitled to under this chapter does not include the 
     services described in subsection (b) and the Secretary of 
     Defense may not furnish any such service.
       ``(b) Services Described.--The services described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       ``(1) Sex reassignment surgeries furnished for the purpose 
     of the gender alteration of a transgender individual.
       ``(2) Hormone treatments furnished for the purpose of the 
     gender alteration of a transgender individual.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment 
No. 10.
  Amendment No. 10 is a very simple amendment. It would prohibit 
TRICARE from covering sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatment 
for transgender individuals. The most recent numbers tell us that the 
Department of Defense has performed over 240 gender reassignment 
surgeries, costing taxpayers approximately $3.1 million.
  Unfortunately, that is just a small part of the cost associated with 
this transaction. The Department has spent over $11.5 million on 
psychotherapy. That is it; psychotherapy for servicemembers with gender 
dysphoria.
  The amount of funds paid out for this psychotherapy shows that the 
surgery alone cannot solve the root issue for these individuals. This 
does nothing to help our troops continue to be the most effective 
fighting force on Earth and is nothing but a distraction and a waste of 
valuable taxpayer dollars. The government has no business funding these 
procedures on the taxpayer's dime.
  The question that must be asked is whether having trans individuals 
makes the United States a more lethal force and whether it helps 
recruit the best and most effective talent for the United States 
military. The answer to that is a clear and resounding no.
  A report commissioned by General Mattis found that servicemembers 
with claims of gender dysphoria are eight times more likely to attempt 
suicide than other servicemembers. It also found that these individuals 
are nine times more likely to have negative mental health episodes than 
other servicemembers.
  As Thomas Spoehr, a former Army Lieutenant General put it, if those 
with gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk of suicide, crippling 
anxiety, or mental breakdowns, then their peers, those serving next to 
them, will be reluctant to rely on them.
  Permitting them to serve also violates the principle of not placing 
individuals at greater risk of injury in harm's way.
  Madam Chair, to summarize this, anything that does not contribute to 
making our fighting force the most effective fighting force on Earth is 
nothing more than a distraction, and I will not ask the people of 
Montana or the United States to pay for it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
Trans servicemembers have served and served successfully for years.
  In fact, trans people are even more likely to serve in the U.S. 
military than cisgender people, so it is mind-boggling that we would 
want to deter and discriminate against a group of people who have 
proven their patriotism and deep commitment to our country.
  All of us are well aware that we are facing steep military 
recruitment and retention challenges. This amendment will worsen this 
crisis by pushing transgender servicemembers out of the military. That 
is because gender-affirming care is necessary and medically backed.
  Care that gives you the ability to be your true, authentic self is 
primary care, and it is not something that should be easily dismissed.
  If our servicemembers constantly worry about their right to exist, 
their ability to serve our country is jeopardized, and it harms our 
readiness and ability to respond quickly and effectively to national 
security challenges.
  I am not alone on this. Secretary Austin agrees that allowing people 
to serve as their authentic self is the right and the smart thing to do 
for our military operations.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our values 
and our readiness and oppose this harmful amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, let me reiterate these numbers again. 
These individuals are eight times more likely to attempt suicide--eight 
times more likely to attempt suicide--and nine times more likely to 
have negative mental health episodes than other servicemembers.
  United States military veterans are experiencing 21 suicides a day, 
and we are doing everything we can in the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
to reduce that number. Why in the world are we considering bringing 
individuals in that are going to increase that number?
  If these individuals are that troubled on an ordinary day without the 
pressures of war, why would we risk our Nation's security on them in 
wartime? It just simply does not make sense.
  Allowing this radical trans agenda to infiltrate our military will 
put our servicemembers and my constituents in harm's way and will make 
our country more vulnerable than it has ever been in modern history.
  My commonsense amendment would save the taxpayers millions of dollars 
and help protect our servicemembers, as well as our country, and maybe 
save a lot of lives as well.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, the ignorance contained in 
these comments is really breathtaking. Transgender people who have 
normal, regular healthcare are no more likely to commit suicide than 
anybody else.
  Basically, the statistics he is showing say once somebody identifies 
as having a problem, they are more likely to have a problem.
  I mean, that would be like saying, we have identified that 
servicemembers who complain of PTSD symptoms are more likely to commit 
suicide.
  The point is to get proper care for transgender people, and you won't 
have

[[Page H3509]]

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

  By the way, the overwhelming majority of transgender people don't 
need any of this any more than any of us do, but when they need it, 
they need it, just like when anybody else does.
  To Ms. Jacobs' point, we need to recruit people. Being bigoted 
against transgender people takes a huge population out of the 
recruitment.
  This is a very simple, easy thing to do and deal with. Again, I 
really want to emphasize not every transgender person needs this care.
  If you have a problem, yes, you are more likely to have a problem, 
but that is true of anybody regardless of your gender. We need 
transgender people to serve in the military. This amendment will make 
that more difficult and should be defeated.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Montana has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  What this is, it just shows the extent to which the Biden 
administration has been pushing this agenda into our military, and it 
is weakening our military. It is not making it stronger.
  We have drag shows taking place at Malmstrom Air Force Base. There 
are 150 ICBM missiles being controlled by that Air Force base and by 
these individuals. I don't want someone who doesn't know if they are a 
man or a woman with their hand on a missile button.
  We have explicit library books on display for children at Malmstrom 
Air Force Base and the U.S. Navy's digital ambassador program featuring 
drag queens posting on TikTok.
  The Department of Defense is paying for travel expenses and is 
offering up to 21 days of leave for soldiers and their dependents to 
get abortions.
  Again, let me tell you that anything that is not focused on making 
the United States military the most effective fighting force on Earth 
is nothing more than a distraction, and we should not be paying for it.
  I won't ask the people of Montana to pay for it, and I will not ask 
the people across the United States to pay for it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Ranking Member Smith for his comments, and I will emphasize 
that transgender people are people.
  They are much more than statistics. They are people serving our 
country. They are people who care and are patriotic.
  They are more likely to harm themselves and suffer from mental health 
challenges due to the harmful rhetoric they hear from elected officials 
denying their right to exist.
  My youngest sibling, my brother, is trans, and he is one of the most 
responsible people I know. I would be thrilled if he wanted to serve 
our country, and you should be, too.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time.
  I am on the floor again holding up the Constitution, which should not 
be eliminated for the fighting force of Americans who have been 
declared by nations around the world as the strongest, most powerful 
fighting force in the world.
  Whatever my friend says on the other side of the aisle, I have no 
basis for his statistics. No one has undermined the force of the men 
and women.
  Let me pay tribute to them. Equal protection of the law says 
basically a healthcare issue is a healthcare issue. Trans people have 
healthcare issues. Trans children have healthcare issues. It is an 
outrage that we should deny Americans who want to die on a battlefield 
the right to get TRICARE.
  Black maternal mortality is more prone to African-American women. 
Should they be in the military and denied healthcare because they have 
a Black maternal mortality and are more apt to have babies that die? 
No. They want to die on the field, too. They want to be able to wear 
the uniform.
  I have never been able to understand how you can deny people 
healthcare. It is healthcare. Let me say it again: It is healthcare.
  For trans children, it is more your denial, your denunciation, your 
contempt, your hatred that drives them to do anything toward 
themselves.
  It could be a heterosexual, and you condemn them, and they may be 
prone to suicide. This is not apt to those who happen to be trans.
  Please, I beg of this floor, do not pass these amendments because the 
Constitution will be trampled on. Healthcare, Madam Chair, is 
healthcare.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague--
  The ACTING Chair. The gentlewoman from California has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, looking at this amendment, if you just 
boil it down, what it is doing is degrading the scope of coverage for 
military servicemembers covered by TRICARE for themselves and their 
dependents.
  What we are doing is we are basically saying if you wear the uniform 
of this country, your level of insurance is going to be less than 
Americans in the civilian sector or in other forms of employment-based 
insurance.
  We have been fighting on the Armed Services Committee to raise the 
level of coverage and to create parity with the civilian sector as a 
way of recruiting people in the military. This goes backward.

  This will be a first for the NDAA to degrade the TRICARE health 
insurance coverage for military members, people who wear the uniform of 
this country.
  Oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 11 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 12 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 13 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 14 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 15 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 16 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 18 will not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 19 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Norman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. PROHIBITIONS ON PROVISION OF GENDER TRANSITION 
                   SERVICES THROUGH AN EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY MEMBER 
                   PROGRAM OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--No gender transition procedures, including 
     surgery or medication, may be provided to a minor dependent 
     child through an EFMP.
       (b) Referrals.--No referral for procedures described in 
     subsection (a) may be provided to a minor dependent child 
     through an EFMP.
       (c) Reassignment.--No change of duty station may be 
     approved through an EFMP for the purpose of providing a minor 
     dependent child with access to procedures described in 
     subsection (a).
       (d) EFMP Defined.--In this section, the term ``Exceptional 
     Family Member Program'' means a program under section 
     1781c(e) of title 10, United States Code.

[[Page H3510]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, it is really an embarrassment for those in 
the balcony and those watching on TV to even have to put up listening 
to amendments to deal with what Matt Rosendale was talking about and to 
deal with what my amendment is doing, which is similar to his, which is 
dealing with surgeries using taxpayer dollars for those who don't know 
whether they are a man or a woman.
  It is total insanity. If you don't know if you are a man or a woman, 
you shouldn't be going into war.
  We have got China building ships and airplanes, and here we are 
debating on the House floor whether taxpayer dollars should cover 
medical care for that person who thinks they ought to be another sex 
than what they are.
  My amendment prohibits the provision 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 children. 
The program is designed for military spouses, children, or other 
dependent family members who require ongoing medical or educational 
services, such as individuals with asthma, autism, chronic respiratory 
illnesses, and others.
  Recently the military has tried to politicize this valuable program 
for transgender procedure purposes. I almost think this administration 
is trying to use something insane, like what we are having to do here, 
to take the focus off the things that are happening in America, like 
the invasion at the border, crime in the streets, or an economy that is 
sinking, that we are having to talk about this. I am glad to do it, 
though. Somebody has to stop it.
  For example, last year the Air Force suggested using the EFMP for 
families who want to help their child transition. Representative 
Panetta introduced a bill to expand the EFMP to include transgender 
dependents and specifically lists gender dysphoria as a qualifying 
medical need for the program.
  If you put this out to the everyday American, would they want their 
tax dollars used for this type of surgery? Would they want their tax 
dollars--and, by the way, spending money we don't have--going for this.
  My amendment ensures that we reserve this valuable program for its 
original intent, to help families with special needs, and prohibits the 
use of the program for the provision of or referral for gender 
transition procedures, such as a gender surgery or for medication. This 
amendment also prohibits the change of duty station simply for the 
purpose of providing a child with easier access to these procedures.
  Hopefully, we can all agree we should not be using taxpayer dollars 
to help children get transgender procedures, but, rather, reserve these 
resources for military families that have children with special needs, 
chronic illnesses, and educational needs.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let's be clear on what this amendment is doing. It is taking 
healthcare services away from servicemembers and their families. That 
is what this is doing. It is denying them access to healthcare.
  The only way this amendment makes sense is if you believe that 
transgender people do not exist. That is the only way this makes sense. 
Unfortunately for the makers of this amendment, transgender people 
absolutely exist. This denial of their existence hurts certainly 
transgender people, but if you are a servicemember and you have 
somebody in your family who needs this care, you are going to get out 
of the service now because the military is saying that your child 
doesn't actually exist, doesn't actually need the same healthcare that 
every other child needs.
  Again, it is repeated over and over again, oh, this has nothing to do 
with defending the country. Making sure that we have the best people 
serving in the military is the number one thing to do with defending 
this country. We are now taking a huge chunk of the population, anyone 
who has a transgender family member or even anyone who thinks they 
might at some point, and saying: You are out, don't serve. No matter 
how capable, no matter how qualified you are, we are going to make it 
impossible for you to serve primarily because of the colossal ignorance 
that a lot of people have about what transgender means.
  You can listen to the sarcasm in their voices: They don't know if 
they are a man or a woman. That is not what transgender is, okay? It is 
both a very legitimate psychological and physical issue that some 
people have to deal with, just like in the special needs services. I 
have met with servicemembers who had a child who had any manner of 
different problems. They were able to stay in the military because 
their child could get the care they needed. We are taking all those 
people and kicking them to the curb because we are ignorant of what 
transgender is and the importance of dealing with it.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, what he just said, I don't think his facts 
are right. You could take everybody in this balcony and ask if they 
know members who fall into two classes of people, those with special 
needs and those where a man wants to be a girl. Line them up. The 
numbers of the group with special needs would far exceed the numbers of 
the other, and they are the ones that need the tax dollars, not the 
ones that want to change their sex.
  Now, let me tell you some of the chronic life-threatening conditions 
that this money should go for and did go for until this idiotic idea of 
using dollars for the trans. It is life-threatening conditions or 
chronic, including current chronic mental health conditions, asthma or 
other respiratory-related diagnosis with chronic recurring symptoms, 
attention deficit disorder, chronic conditions that require adaptive 
equipment, including technology and environmental or architectural 
considerations.

  I mean, it is idiotic for him to say that the needs of a huge group 
of people all over this country will be trumped by the needs for a very 
few. The trans, I think if you do the math, it is less than 1 percent.
  No, I think this is a diversion tactic to just get people away. They 
are weakening the military. That is why we are down 30 percent in 
recruitment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, families care about their children, and 
it stuns me that the gentleman on the other side has indicated that he 
wants to take health decisions out of the hands of parents who are 
serving in the United States military, committed to laying their life 
down for America, and eliminate it to the point that the parents who 
love the military must leave the military and diminish our fighting 
force.
  Let me be clear. As relates to trans children and medical care, every 
major medical and mental health association in the United States, 
representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors, support age-
appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender people.
  In addition, in the special needs of the soldiers and others in the 
United States military, there is no indication that money would be 
taken away from special needs children as relates to the particular 
needs of trans children. What it does say is that parents who love 
their children would be discriminated against depending on what their 
health need is.
  Therefore, I rise today in opposition to this ill-thought-out and 
ill-fated, I hope, amendment that clearly divides us as Americans, as 
members of the United States military, in that it goes against science 
and medicine because this affirming medical care has been accepted.

[[Page H3511]]

  I am struck, as I end, by someone suggesting that someone who has 
their hand on a nuclear weapon or they are in some strategic assignment 
is diminished because they have a life that is different from someone 
else, that they are no more of a soldier than someone else. They are a 
soldier. They are part of the military, and families should be allowed 
to make decisions for their children.
  Madam Chair, these health decisions are life-changing and needed, and 
medical doctors and science affirm it. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).
  Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, let's be clear: Every major medical 
association in the United States, every single major medical 
association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million 
United States doctors, has affirmed that gender-affirming care is safe 
and effective.
  Healthcare decisions for children should be between the patient, the 
parents, and the healthcare provider, not the government, not some 
politician who has no idea what he is talking about. I wonder what you 
would do if your kid came to you, sure that they were in the wrong 
body.
  Madam Chair, I have talked to parents. Many of them didn't think they 
believed in trans issues either. But it should be between a parent, 
their child, and their doctor what healthcare decisions get made.
  By denying servicemembers the ability to provide medically necessary 
care for their children, including by relocating, this amendment will 
likely lead to servicemembers leaving the military and will weaken 
efforts to recruit other people who do or may have transgender family 
members.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


           amendment no. 21 offered by ms. greene of georgia

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Davidson). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 118-142.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 709, beginning line 18, strike sections 1223, 1224, 
     and 1225.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask the House to 
pass my amendment to pull the funding for the war in Ukraine.
  I am the proud daughter of a Navy combat veteran who served in the 
Vietnam war. I am also a grateful American for the freedoms I have the 
great honor to possess, and I fully respect our country's brave men and 
women who have fought and those that died so that Americans can be 
free.
  I believe that in order to achieve world peace, America must have the 
strongest military in the world but only cautiously use our tremendous 
force when our national security is threatened.
  In recent years, we have seen our great military and those who serve 
our country be used too often for the defense of foreign nations, and 
we have far too many veterans today who suffer physically and mentally 
from the foreign wars they were sent to fight. We have seen too many 
American flag-draped caskets return home to grieving families.
  While our troops are not yet on the ground in Ukraine, fighting to 
defend another country's border that is not our own, most Americans 
fear that could soon be the case because they know Washington's 
bloodlust for war is an addiction that seems almost impossible to be 
undone.
  While Americans struggle with the record-high inflation caused by 
failed government policies, many hardworking Americans can barely pay 
their bills. After decades of America-last policies that have built up 
other countries' economies while destroying American manufacturing, 
sending our jobs overseas, and crippling the middle class, creating the 
massive divide between the rich and the poor, Americans no longer want 
to pay for and go fight Washington's forever foreign wars.
  Yet, disconnected from the will of Americans just over a year ago, 
Congress voted to send $113 billion to Ukraine, a sum of money that is 
approximately 10 times the cost of building our own border wall. Today, 
we are debating the National Defense Authorization Act that contains 
even more money to be sent to Ukraine while the $113 billion already 
authorized has not yet even been spent.
  The amendment I am offering today will pull the $300 million in 
funding to Ukraine from the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important 
funding bills that Congress passes year after year. This is the funding 
of our Nation's defense. This is the funding for the Department of 
Defense. This is the funding for the good men and women who serve in 
our military.

                              {time}  1515

  The Department of Defense's website makes its mission clear. It says 
that its mission is to deter war and protect our Nation's national 
security.
  With the Department of Defense mission being very clear in stating 
what the mission is, no money funding and fueling the Ukraine war 
belongs in our National Defense Authorization Act because this is for 
our Nation, not for another nation, not for Ukraine. Ukraine is not the 
51st State.
  Sending money to fund a war in a foreign country does not deter war, 
it continues it. It causes it. It enables it and it allows it. Sending 
money to fund a war in a foreign country against a nuclear-armed nation 
does not protect our national security, it endangers our national 
security. It endangers every single American. It endangers the entire 
world. We do not want World War III.
  I rise today to encourage all of my colleagues to consider that they 
can pass another funding bill to fund money going to Ukraine without it 
being in our National Defense Authorization Act. I ask my colleagues 
and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As we consider this amendment today, Ukrainians are suffering greatly 
as Russia's brutal war against their sovereignty continues unabated. 
Seventy-eight percent of Ukrainians have had either a family member or 
a friend die because of Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Cities 
have been decimated, families have been broken, and lives have been 
lost.
  But the Zelenskyy government stands, the fight for democracy is 
alive, and Ukrainian willpower is and has been unflappable, and Putin's 
so-called ``special military operation'' has become one of the biggest 
strategic catastrophes in Russian history as we stand today. Russian 
generals are disappearing, and the Wagner group was marching on Moscow, 
not Kyiv, just a few weeks ago.
  The United States' security assistance has been absolutely essential 
for the Ukrainian Army's heroic stand against the invaders of their 
homeland. We cannot and must not pull back now. The cost of this war on 
the Ukrainian people has been immense, but their bravery has been even 
more monumental.
  I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I am confident that 
it

[[Page H3512]]

will, in fact, be opposed in a strong bipartisan vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I again remind Congress that 
Ukraine is not the 51st State of America. This is not a NATO ally, and 
this is our National Defense Authorization Act, for our Nation, for the 
United States of America with 50 States.
  I would also like to remind Congress that the Department of Defense 
has failed its audit every single year, year over year. Last year 
alone, they could not account for over 61 percent of their assets.
  The Department of Defense is not doing a good job with the money that 
Congress allows for it to have for our Nation's defense, and I think 
that it is important, again, for everyone in Congress to realize the 
American people don't work hard every single day to pay for other 
countries' borders to be defended. They want our border defended.
  We have 300 Americans dying every single day from fentanyl poisoning 
that is coming from China and the Mexican cartels. If our Department of 
Defense wants to defend America, we should be defending our border and 
not proclaiming our righteousness talking about a war in Ukraine.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I request an Advil, and I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as a 31-year Army veteran 
myself, and a grateful father of four sons who have served overseas in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt, I believe very much in the principles of 
Ronald Reagan, peace through strength.
  I am very grateful that, in fact, President Donald Trump was the 
first person to recognize and try to stop the war in Ukraine. He sent 
javelin missiles to stop Putin, war criminal Putin.
  He put American troops in Poland, which had the effect of stopping 
war criminal Putin. He also warned the Chancellor of Germany Angela 
Merkel and others that Nord Stream 2 should be closed and stopped to 
avoid the funding of any war by war criminal Putin.
  So in that tradition, I would oppose any cutting of the defense 
because we know this is a worldwide war that we are in of 
authoritarians versus democracies. This is not a war we chose. War 
criminal Putin is the person who started the war February 24.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by associating my 
remarks with the remarks of my friend, Mr.   Joe Wilson, from South 
Carolina. It is not often that we get to do that on the floor of this 
House.
  Joe and I come from different places but we believe in America. We 
believe in America and we want to protect America.
  It has been a long time since we have had to stand here and talk 
about the Republican Party being pro-Russia, the Republican Party being 
pro-Putin.
  Just to be clear, 62 percent of Americans in the last poll want to 
support Ukraine, so it is just factually inaccurate to say that most 
Americans are against this.
  Why is it important? It is important that we support Ukraine because 
American lives are on the line. Serving in Iraq in the Marines, it was 
our allies that saved American marines lives. It was our allies that 
made a difference.

  If you are soft on Russia, by being hard on Ukraine today, you are 
being soft on China because American lives will be on the line if China 
thinks they can do what Putin is trying to do in Ukraine.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. President Biden's policy on Ukraine has been 
clear and it has got two pieces: First, do what we can to support 
Ukraine, to make sure that a sovereign democratic Ukraine survives; 
second, don't go to war with Russia.
  So it is the red herring of all red herrings to say that U.S. troops 
are going to be put into this conflict. The conflict has been going on 
for over 18 months. We have very carefully not dragged U.S. troops, or 
even NATO troops, into this conflict.
  What we are doing is we are supporting a sovereign democratic Ukraine 
against a tyrannical dictator who is trying to take over that country 
through violence. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he won't stop at 
Ukraine.
  I also am interested in the sponsor of this amendment's remark that 
the U.S. shouldn't care about what goes on in the rest of the world 
which, I guess, means we shouldn't care about what is going on in 
China.
  The purpose of all of this is deterrence. We want to deter Russia 
from going further than Ukraine. We want to deter China from thinking 
they can use military force to claim sovereign territory.
  Deterrence is what will stop U.S. servicemembers from winding up 
dying in a war. We need to support Ukraine.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, do I have any more time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, just building off of that is 
really important. I think the President and a whole lot of people have 
over and over explained what we are doing in Ukraine.
  We should not fight every war everywhere. I agree with that. That is 
why I strongly supported getting us out of Afghanistan long before we 
actually did. There was not a strategic interest there and, also, U.S. 
lives were being lost in Afghanistan. That was what was at stake.
  In Ukraine, along with 53 other countries in the world, we are 
supporting an effort to protect a sovereign democracy against a 
dictatorship. Those are core U.S. interests.
  The Ukrainians are doing the fighting. All they are asking for is our 
support. If we can deter that type of aggression, it does advance U.S. 
interests. It does protect U.S. servicemembers from having to fight.
  We don't want to fight at home. We don't want to fight anywhere in 
the world, but you have to stand up to dictators who are willing to 
push that if you are going to get to that place. That is what we are 
doing in Ukraine in a very effective manner.
  Let's not abandon Ukraine at this point. They deserve our support.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time is expired. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Gaetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in subtitle A of title XVIII, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

       Notwithstanding any provision of this or any other Act, no 
     Federal funds may be made available to provide security 
     assistance to Ukraine.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite similar to the prior 
one, but it wouldn't just strip the cash out of the bill; it would not 
require further security assistance to Ukraine.

[[Page H3513]]

  I offer this amendment because the Biden administration is 
sleepwalking our great country into a world war. The American people 
did not sign up for this, and I believe Congress needs to have the 
solemnity to be able to stop this madness.
  I miss the days when Democrats used to be anti-war. I listened with 
great interest as the ranking member, who I have great respect for, 
said the goal of this entire Ukraine-U.S. enterprise is to ensure that 
we are not going to war with Russia. That is a bit odd to hear, after 
several Democrats have taken to this floor and media outlets to suggest 
we are at war with Russia.
  It was, in fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who came to 
this floor and said we are at war with Russia. It was the gentleman 
from Massachusetts who just spoke on the prior amendment, who said, 
functionally, the same thing.
  I do not want to go to war with Russia, and I don't think the 
American people do either. That does not make anyone pro-Putin.
  I would similarly observe that part of the funding assistance that we 
are providing to Ukraine has nothing to do the with the military. In 
this country we have cops, we have firemen, we have teachers who wonder 
whether or not their pension fund is going to be sufficient to cover 
their life for the service that they have given.
  While that is a question in our country, it is no question in Ukraine 
because the American taxpayer is underwriting all of the pensions for 
every single government official in Ukraine, and we don't do that for 
the people who put out our fires and protect our streets.
  Similarly, how can we continue to just send all this money when there 
is a lack of accountability?
  The Pentagon has to fess up that they have multibillion-dollar 
accounting errors in this space.
  When we had the inspector general before our House Armed Services 
Committee, he could not testify that our country had followed our own 
requirements and our own laws regarding the end-use monitoring of 
equipment that we are sending into a combat zone.
  We have unfunded needs in our own military, and I support the NDAA. I 
am grateful that we have done a lot of work but, even with this NDAA, 
in America there will be hangars that are rusting out. In America there 
will be platforms that need upgrades, and they will go wanting while 
Ukraine seems to have an unlimited amount of support in this Congress 
that is unwarranted.
  Forty percent of our training aircraft can't even fly in this country 
because we don't have sufficient parts to be able to get it to them.
  This war will end any time those folks in Europe want it to. But they 
keep buying the Russian gas, and they keep expecting all of us in 
America to subsidize Europe's defense while they provide some massive 
social welfare state. I am not for it, and that is why I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with certain members of 
the Republican Party's continued opposition to aiding Ukraine.
  Our security assistance to Ukraine over the past year plus has been 
crucial to Ukrainian efforts to counter Russia's illegal, immoral, and 
reprehensible invasion of another sovereign nation.
  If Vladimir Putin and our foreign adversaries can invade other 
countries without any response from the United States or our allies 
around the globe, then every country in the world becomes less safe.
  The United States is not fighting a war in Ukraine. We are giving 
Ukrainians the weapons they need to fight the war for themselves and 
defend their country from totalitarian invaders.
  We must support our friends who are standing on the front lines of 
the fight for freedom in this world. I oppose this amendment 
forcefully, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss when my colleague asks 
without any response from the United States. It has already been $115 
billion that we have authorized. One hell of a response, I would say.
  But there has to be some point in time where we put our country ahead 
of Ukraine, and that is what this amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
  Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I have to say there are things where I agree 
with my colleagues, the Republicans. It is good to have healthy 
dialogue and discussion. We are a free institution here. I actually 
agree that we need to defend our borders, too. I actually agree that we 
need to have better oversight and go to better security assistance and 
not some other things, too.
  I actually agree with them that we need to have the fiscal issues 
resolved at the Department of Defense and offered amendments, but I 
disagree that Ukraine is not a national interest.
  Stopping this war and deterring aggressors like China and Russia is 
in our national interest. Many Americans were killed by Russian-made 
weapons around the world, and we need to learn from the mistakes of 
World War II that weakness invites aggression.
  I truly believe this administration didn't do that good of a job 
deterring it, but now we need to help Ukraine. We need to understand 
that there are a lot of lives that are going to be lost for Ukrainians. 
We need to make sure that we don't have never-ending war, and better 
security assistance will help to restore peace.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, the millions of Americans whose families sent 
loved ones over to the European theater during World War II so liberty 
could be bequeathed to us understand what an enemy really is and what 
sacrifice is required.
  The Ukrainians are fighting their own war against Russia's invasion. 
History is clear, however, on what horrors transpire when national 
leaders appease a virulent enemy of liberty. Appeasement is read as 
cowardice, acquiescence, weakness, and, even worse, succor to the 
enemy.
  Give no succor nor encouragement to liberty's enemies. We need to 
defend freedom. Freedom means never surrendering, never acquiescing, 
never failing liberty.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in full support of Ukraine and to 
defeat any amendments on this floor that in any way would inhibit 
victory for Ukraine.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Victoria 
Spartz is correct. We can learn from the lessons of World War II. There 
was weakness, and with that weakness, Imperial Japan attacked China. 
Then, ultimately, on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
  We must be resolved to resist by having peace through strength. I 
personally can identify. My father served in China and India during 
World War II with the Flying Tigers to stop the tide of imperialism at 
that time.
  Today, we can learn from history. Today is the 79th anniversary of 
the liberation of Guam. We don't need to repeat the weakness that has 
occurred. We need to stop our enemies today. These authoritarians have 
plans to dissolve the United States, and we need to stop it now.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, they accuse this amendment of being born of 
weakness. Guess what, Mr. Chair? It does not make America stronger to 
borrow money from China to give to Ukraine.
  Do you know who we are appeasing? China. As we engage in this 
endeavor, China is doing a leveraged buyout of Russia. We see that in 
Eastern Russia. We see that in the Russian assets in China.
  We are actually helping China weaken ourselves all to figure out 
which guy in a sweat suit gets to run Crimea, and

[[Page H3514]]

that doesn't seem like America's interest to me.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I actually think the gentleman is 
correct. China and Russia are very closely aligned, and if you are 
concerned about Chinese aggression in the world, you must also be 
concerned about Russian aggression.
  I also note that when he quoted me on what the policy was, he 
conveniently left out the first part. He mentioned that we don't want 
to get into a war with Russia, but he left out the first part, which is 
``preserve a sovereign, democratic Ukraine.'' President Biden and his 
team have done an excellent job of this.
  Nobody thought Ukraine could survive this long, but thanks to their 
courage, their willingness to fight, and 53 nations that have coalesced 
to help them, they have been able to preserve a sovereign, democratic 
Ukraine.
  I want to place a strong emphasis on that. I know Americans are 
rightly worried. Is it just us standing up for these principles in the 
world? In Ukraine, it is not. It is 53 nations that are contributing 
across the board, 53 nations that believe preserving economic and 
political freedom requires us to not let an autocrat like Vladimir 
Putin run over Ukraine. Please oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, the funds sent to Ukraine represent a major 
investment in war, not national defense or building infrastructure to 
deter conflict. This is the active engagement in the killing of sons, 
daughters, husbands, and wives abroad. We shouldn't be funding these 
actions until the defense of our country can be reflected with some 
sort of tangible connection.
  The money to Ukraine does not fulfill this objective.
  There must be a threshold for funding a proxy war. How much will it 
take to win? What is the return? When will it end?
  The Biden administration does not have answers to these questions, 
and until they do, we should stop sending money to these misadventures.

  The United States of America is not the world's police force, and we 
are not the world's piggy bank, but they would have us become the block 
captains of Kyiv.
  My amendment is going to lose overwhelmingly when it is put up for a 
vote, but the American people will see who wants to represent them and 
who wants to represent Crimea.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 118-142.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 385, beginning line 3, strike section 750.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Ms. Greene of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today to again strike 
funding out of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is an important funding bill 
for the United States of America, not for any other country. The 
American people are fed up and tired of the hard-earned tax dollars 
that they pay to our government being spent in foreign lands and 
foreign countries for foreign causes and foreign people.
  To be against funding for war is not pro-Russia. It is pro-America, 
pro-Americans, and pro our own American border.
  I would like to talk about this feasibility study for creating a 
center of excellence in Ukraine by reminding the House today that there 
are approximately 40,000 homeless veterans in America today. These are 
men and women who served our country, served to defend our national 
security, but yet they are living homeless on the streets.
  Our National Defense Authorization Act should only fund the 
Department of Defense for the defense of our country. I will state the 
mission statement on the Department of Defense website: The mission 
stands to deter war and to protect our Nation's national security.
  Engaging and paying for a feasibility study on creating a center of 
excellence in Ukraine does not deter war, nor does that protect our 
national security interest.
  I would like to talk about the people that we should care about, the 
people we should be spending our American tax dollars on. One of them 
is a man named Mike Reynolds. Mike lives in my district and is a 
veteran who served our country. Mike has a brain injury, a brain injury 
that he sustained while serving the United States of America in our 
military.
  Mike did not get help from Veterans Affairs. Mike is not receiving 
help from a feasibility study in the Department of Defense funding in 
the NDAA. Mike had to establish his own way of helping himself by 
creating a very important and incredible organization to help other 
veterans who also don't receive help. It is called HERO Ag.
  Mike is a farmer, and he learned to become a farmer because he found 
that farming was a way that he could heal not only his brain but he 
could also heal the pain inside of him that he sustained from serving 
and fighting in another foreign war, not America's war.
  What Mike does now is he spends his time rehabbing other veterans who 
are also injured in all kinds of ways, some of them not visible by our 
own eyes because their injury is inside and inside their brains.
  Mike is a great American, and I am so proud that he lives in my 
district. I am honored and always grateful to visit his farm and do 
anything I can to help HERO Ag and help the veterans that go there.
  Our National Defense Authorization Act should be funding our 
Department of Defense for our Nation's military, and that doesn't have 
anything to do with another nation.
  There is a lot of talk in the House today coming from both sides of 
the aisle, talking about what the NDAA is for, but too much of the 
time, I am hearing it talk about a war in Ukraine.
  Again, I will remind everyone here that Ukraine is not the 51st 
State. Ukraine is another country in another land. American lives are 
not being risked. They are not being killed in Ukraine because Ukraine, 
again, is not part of the United States of America.
  Our tax dollars come from America. They come from hardworking 
Americans, and they very much want their money only to be spent for the 
defense of our border, of our States, and of our national security 
interest.
  This is a feasibility study that should not be in our NDAA. This 
should be in a separate funding bill, just like $300 million going to 
Ukraine should be in a separate funding bill because it doesn't make 
sense for the NDAA. This feasibility study for creating a center of 
excellence in Ukraine should be in a separate funding bill, and that 
would be the important way to handle it.
  Now, I will ask the House today: Is it our job to be the world's 
police? Is it our job to create feasibility studies on how to help 
injured people all over the world?
  While the NDAA has a proposed center of excellence for Ukraine, the 
NDAA does not have a proposed center of excellence for countries in 
Africa that have civil wars going on where there are people there 
dealing with amputations or brain injuries. This

[[Page H3515]]

doesn't have a feasibility study to help any other country but Ukraine. 
Again, I will reiterate: Ukraine is not the United States of America.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Spartz). The gentleman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I will begin by injecting some facts into 
this discussion.
  We debated this measure in the Armed Services Committee. The 
amendment was adopted to extend the feasibility study from the U.S. 
Center of Excellence at Walter Reed Hospital, which was created by the 
NDAA in 2009, to help maybe advise the Ukrainians in terms of setting 
up their own center of excellence within their own country to treat 
victims of traumatic brain injury and also other horrible injuries that 
are happening in real time.
  There were drone attacks on Kyiv last night where four Ukrainians 
were injured severely, and when committee members had a chance to 
actually vote on this, the amendment was adopted 49-10, which was 
actually the largest bipartisan vote of the entire markup for this 
year's NDAA.
  I want to be clear: This does not establish a center of excellence in 
Ukraine. It basically talks about the feasibility of advising 
healthcare officials within Ukraine in terms of best practices from the 
over decade of experience that we have at Walter Reed, which has helped 
thousands of U.S. veterans who suffered TBI in the Middle East.
  I applaud the gentlewoman's constituent, who is doing great work. 
Some of those individuals do it on their own, in terms of setting up 
their own services, but there is no question that this center has 
provided great direct healthcare for people suffering from this wound 
of war. It has also helped create best practices as we have learned 
more about this type of injury because of the hard experience that took 
place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1545

  There are probably, as calculated now, well over 100,000 Ukrainians 
who are wounded and suffering injuries, civilians in most cases, from 
indiscriminate bombing by Russia, who is conducting an illegal, 
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. This is the ultimate, in terms of 
humanitarian assistance to victims of war, to victims of aggression, 
using, again, the well-honed skills and healthcare expertise of our 
country to help an ally who is fighting the fight in terms of 
protecting their democratic self-rule from an invasion by Russia.
  We had very strong bipartisan support to support this effort. I hope 
that we will vote in a resounding fashion for political reasons, for 
military reasons, and for just simple decency to help people who have 
suffered injuries.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Chair, in Ukraine, since day one of this 
war, attacks have been aimed at civilian structures, hospitals, energy 
infrastructure, and urban centers. In the battlefield, Russia has 
brutally murdered prisoners of war as their Wagnerites occupied 
Ukraine's towns and territory.
  Allied military sources say that Russia has landmined Ukrainian 
territory at an unprecedented rate, making it one of the largest 
minefields in the world. These minefields in war zones and in 
agricultural areas will likely cause civilian death and require 
billions of dollars to safely remove in the coming years. The World 
Bank estimated the cost to be at $37.6 billion.
  Ukraine is paying for their freedom with their lives as we speak, but 
the mental, emotional, familial, and social scars will be there for 
generations to come. Ukrainian citizens are living through a nightmare 
because of their push toward democracy during the Revolution of Dignity 
in 2014.
  This amendment prohibits a feasibility study on centers for treatment 
of traumatic brain injuries to improve the lives of individuals 
affected by traumatic brain injury experienced in Ukraine as a result 
of Russian aggression and to improve the lives of the family members of 
such an individual.
  Honestly, we should be funding centers across the world because that 
is a better expression of democracy than what is often exhibited.
  This amendment is callous, and America and our partners' support of 
Ukraine's fight for freedom is better than that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has the only time remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, again, really quickly, I would just note 
that this builds on an amendment which was adopted in last year's NDAA 
to establish a partnership between the DOD and Ukraine. Again, that is 
still sort of working its way through the system.
  Again, this is really about trying to explore the value of the Center 
of Excellence for TBI, which, again, I think, is something that all of 
us should support just for simple decency reasons.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Georgia) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________