[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 120 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3515-H3524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Davidson
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bentz). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 24 printed in House Report 118-142.
Mr. DAVIDSON. 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:
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. _. REPORT AND STRATEGY FOR UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT IN
UKRAINE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President, in coordination
with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State,
shall develop and submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report that contains a strategy for United
States involvement in Ukraine.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
contain the following elements:
(1) A strategy stating the explicit United States national
interest at stake with respect to the conflict in Ukraine,
including an annex of specific objectives and benchmarks to
measure the success or failure of continued United States
involvement with respect to Ukraine.
(2) A plan detailing a diplomatic pathway, including any
personnel involved in diplomatic communications, by which the
United States can facilitate a negotiated cessation of
hostilities in Ukraine.
(3) An assessment of the costs to the United States and to
Ukraine if the conflict is allowed to continue for an
additional 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years.
(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(d) Briefing.--Not later than 45 days after the date of the
submission of the report required by subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall provide
to the appropriate congressional committees, and other
Members of Congress that wish to participate, a briefing on
the United States strategy with respect to Ukraine and plans
for the implementation of such strategy.
(e) Limitation on Funds.--None of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may
be made available for Ukraine until the report required by
subsection (a) is submitted to the appropriate congressional
committees.
[[Page H3516]]
(f) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the congressional defense committees; and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply requires a mission
statement from the National Command Authority.
We used to insist on a mission and an exit strategy before we
committed to wars. Make no mistake, this is a proxy war in Ukraine.
Russians have unjustly invaded their neighbor, and Ukrainians are
rightly defending their country.
The first thing the administration did was offer President Zelenskyy
a ride. He said, in a very inspiring response: I don't need a ride. I
need ammunition.
Who couldn't be inspired by that?
Before we spent $113 billion, we should have expected a mission. We
still don't have a defined mission. Whether it is in public or in a
classified setting is fine with this amendment, but it should be
required. We should have done it up front, we should have done it
subsequently, but we should at least do it now.
Before we spend this other $300 million that is in this National
Defense Authorization Act, we should require what every E-5 and above
is able to draft. It is the least we can expect out of our National
Command Authority.
When we commit to something, the Nation should commit to it, not just
our military and not just our checkbook, an open checkbook. Without a
mission, we can't hold anyone accountable for failure, and we can't
properly claim mission accomplished. We must have a mission.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. I could
support it but for the limitation clause, which is meant to cut support
for Ukraine. Like all of these amendments, this is meant to undermine
our support for Ukraine. I simply oppose it and urge all of my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires a mission. We have
asked nicely, we have asked persistently, and they have given us no
response, so there has to be consequences.
We figure $300 million out of $113 billion is a small price. It is
enough to get their attention, hopefully. Who knows?
They can't account for billions of dollars at the Pentagon. Instead
of holding them accountable for it, even firing anybody, we are giving
them even more money.
Now, I couldn't be more pro-military. I enlisted in the Army. I got
the chance to go to our Nation's military academy. I came back as an
Army infantry officer, served in the Ranger regiment. I love this
country with a soldier's passion.
We have got to put our country first. If we are going to spend money,
we should at least demand a mission, and $300 million is small change.
In fact, before this bill could even make it through the Senate,
before appropriations could even come up, they could draft a mission.
They could draft a mission today, and they probably have it. The
trouble is, they have three or four versions of the mission.
The mission to make sure this war doesn't spread to a NATO ally would
be a just cause, but it is not clear that is what they are trying to
do. They are not pursuing any kind of peace negotiation.
The mission to require no Russians in Ukraine could be a just cause,
but that is very different than a mission that says no Russians in
Ukraine including Crimea. Each of those are radically different
resource allocations.
I want to know, if we are going to give resources, what mission are
you asking me to fund?
Here is the really radical one. Victoria Nuland from the State
Department says that our mission is regime change in Russia, including
war crimes tribunals for Vladimir Putin. Now, if that is our mission,
we don't have resources for that fight. That would require us to be in
the fight. That is fundamentally a declaration of war. That is an
unlimited war of regime change, a war of aggression by the United
States because we have not been attacked.
Now, make no mistake, we are using a proxy. But isn't a proxy meant
to facilitate a broader war with Russia? Unless we demand that mission,
how do we hold them accountable for not growing it and expanding it? We
must demand a mission.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, sometimes the devil is in the reading.
The amendment sounds good, but at the end of the day, it cuts support.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, indeed, there should be a
strategy of U.S. support to defeat war criminal Putin, and it should be
clarified.
Sadly, we are in a worldwide conflict that we did not start. It was
Putin, on February the 24, 2021, that invaded Ukraine. This began an
active conflict and a worldwide competition that we are having, and
that is with authoritarians, with Putin in control of the Russian
Federation and abusing the people of Russia.
We have the authoritarians of Beijing, the Chinese Communist Party
threatening the people of Taiwan. Clearly, we also have the regime in
Tehran that pledges death to America, death to Israel, the vaporization
of the people of Israel.
This is a worldwide conflict that needs to be addressed. We should
have a strategy, and that is why I have introduced legislation,
bipartisan, H. Res. 332, to define victory as restoration of Ukraine's
1991 internationally recognized borders. This is territory integrity
for the people of Ukraine, NATO membership, as agreed to with the 2008
Bucharest Declaration, and justice and accountability for
war crimes committed by Putin's murderous invaders.
The Biden administration, sadly, has not been clear with Congress. We
can be clear because we have got to stand together. War criminal Putin
needs to know that his violations of nine different agreements is
simply not going to be allowed or recognized, that we should have, in
the tradition of Ronald Reagan, peace through strength.
Mr. Chair, I urge that we have bipartisan support to encourage the
President to clarify the American strategy for Ukrainian victory, which
is peace through strength.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from South Carolina talks
about war criminal Putin. That makes me think he supports regime change
in Russia, because that is what it would take to prosecute Vladimir
Putin for war crimes.
Now, I am not saying that he is not a war criminal. I am not saying
anything he has done is just. It is not. The question is: Is that
really the mission that we are trying to fund?
The sequence is ready, aim, fire for a reason. It is not ready, fire,
aim. It is not too late to pull back and do the rational thing here and
commit to a mission so that we can be accountable, and we can hold this
administration accountable, our military commanders accountable, and,
frankly, our weak State Department accountable for actually
accomplishing a mission.
Hopefully, they succeed, and we can say: Well done. Mission
accomplished. But they don't want to be accountable for the mission.
That is why they worked so hard to oppose this rational standard that
was always the cause. Post-Vietnam, we learned we commit to a mission,
and we commit to an exit strategy. We abandon it at our peril. We are
less free, less safe, and more burdened by debt because of it. We have
to demand a mission.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1600
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
[[Page H3517]]
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is one of the great myths
of this situation that we don't have a mission.
The Biden administration has laid out a very, very clear plan, as I
said at the outset, and that plan is to do everything we can to help
preserve a sovereign democratic Ukraine without going to war with
Russia. That is the administration's plan, and they have made it clear
over and over and over again.
There are a lot of different people that have different opinions.
This amendment does not ask for Joe Wilson's plan. This amendment
asks for the White House--the administration's plan, which we already
have. If you want to get Joe's plan, he is sitting right there, and I
suggest you ask him.
The administration has a very clear mission. That mission doesn't
have anything to do with regime change or trying Vladimir Putin. These
are all things to discuss. The mission in this conflict and the reason
we are supporting Ukraine is to preserve a sovereign democratic
Ukraine, which means helping them take back as much of their territory
that they can. How much they can take back is hard to say.
We are supporting them and because we supported them, there is a
sovereign democratic Ukraine. We are also at the same time having
conversations with Ukraine and trying to have conversations with Russia
about getting to the peace table. Right now Vladimir Putin isn't
willing to do that. He wants to destroy Ukraine. We are helping Ukraine
protect themselves. The mission is clear.
Using this excuse of a report to cut off the funds for the mission is
not the right approach. You can disagree with the mission if you want.
I understand that. It is a democracy, and we can have that
conversation, but let's please stop saying that there isn't clarity.
There is absolute clarity. President Biden, Jake Sullivan, Chairman
Milley, and Secretary Austin have said over and over and over again
that we are helping Ukraine defend itself so we can preserve a
sovereign democratic Ukraine and stop Russia from wiping them off the
map. That is the mission.
Thus far, it has been successful. We want to help them retake more
territory.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIDSON. 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 gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Ogles
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 118-142.
Mr. OGLES. 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:
Strike section 1224.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the adoption of my
amendment to ensure that President Biden's lend-lease authority
regarding Ukraine is subject to the same requirements under the Arms
Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act as loans to every
other country.
These requirements would not block or do not block any of the current
support that our government is providing to Ukraine but would mitigate
the risk that the Biden administration or, for that matter, any
administration abuses its lend-lease authorities in the future.
The requirements include that the loan is made for a fixed period of
time, up to 5 years, and the borrower agrees to repay us all the costs
we incur by lending our equipment, such as money to repair or to
replace damaged equipment.
Loans have agreements for repayment. Without the requirement that
loans have a defined term and a repayment agreement, without those
terms it is not a loan. It is a grant or a gift. Funding Ukraine is
under the purview of Congress, not the executive branch.
He can simply call it a loan and never require repayment or
reimbursement, or he could extend the terms out indefinitely or request
repayment in something else like Monopoly money--and I say that in
jest.
Other requirements under the Arms Export Control Act include that the
President determine that there are compelling foreign policy or
national security reasons to lend the equipment rather than actually
just selling it, and he considers any impact the loan may have on our
national technology and industrial base.
Surely, none of us want the President to lend equipment if he doesn't
believe we have a compelling national interest to be involved, or
without consideration of the impact on our industrial base.
Finally, it requires that the President provide detailed reports to
the Foreign Affairs and Appropriations Committees when he exercises the
lend-lease authorities, which is a very reasonable requirement
consistent with basic congressional oversight.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment and reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment, which would eliminate the important extension of lend-lease
authority for Ukraine included in the underlying bill.
As Ukraine continues its counteroffensive against Russia's brutal,
unprovoked war of aggression, we must continue doing everything we can
with our allies and partners in support; not just for the future of
Ukraine and its people, but for democracies and free people across the
world opposing brutal autocrats like Putin.
The lend-lease authority this bill extends is one of the many tools
the administration has at its disposal to support Ukraine in its
courageous efforts with critical weapons and defense capabilities.
This authority is one which has bipartisan support, not just in
committee by virtue of the extension being included in the bill, but by
way of bicameral, bipartisan passage in strong support roughly 10
months ago. It was a Republican bill led by Senator John Cornyn, S.
3522, which provided for lend-lease authority for Ukraine that passed
by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, 417-10 in favor, including nearly
200 Republicans.
I call on Members to recognize the importance of ensuring Ukraine has
the tools and capabilities it needs to defend itself, defeat Russia,
and preserve its independence and sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I believe in freedom. I believe in liberty.
I believe in the right for a country to defend itself. I also believe
in accountability. These are taxpayer dollars being used overseas. We
have an authority, and we have a responsibility as Congress to oversee
these dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I regret I have to oppose my colleague from
Tennessee's amendment. I believe it is in our national security
interest that Ukraine remains independent. If they fall, what happens
next? What does the bully do next?
He threatens the Baltics. He has already called them renegade states.
That is a threat. You stop a bully when he is pushing you around. That
is what Putin is doing. He invaded a country one-forth the size of
Russia in population. They cannot win without our help. It is not
Americans doing the
[[Page H3518]]
fighting, it is Ukrainians doing the fighting, but they cannot prevail
without our material support.
Thus far, we have provided about 5 percent of what our military
budget equates to. For 5 percent, half of Russia's tanks have been
destroyed and almost 200,000 Russians have been killed while they are
invading the Ukrainians.
We have spent this money in a way that is helping our national
interests prevail, and it is helping Ukraine survive. It will prevent
what I believe is the next phase, if we stop him here, which is the
Baltics or Poland.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend that my colleagues vote against this
amendment.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, while Members of Congress have diverse views
on the conflict in Ukraine and the appropriate role of the United
States, which we have talked about a lot when considering this bill, I
hope we can broadly agree that Congress must exercise
its responsibility to guide and oversee the use of our taxpayer dollars
and our defense equipment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is so important with
lend-lease that we make every effort to provide the people of Ukraine,
who are fighting so valiantly with equipment. Many of us thought that
they simply couldn't resist, but they are. They are resisting because
they are getting the equipment. The quickest way to get the equipment
is through lend-lease.
I am very grateful that last year, as has already been identified, we
voted here in Congress 417-10 to provide for the Ukraine Democracy
Defense Lend-Lease Act. It provides for great accountability.
Ironically, I have actually seen success of lend-lease. I was in St.
Petersburg, Russia, to place a wreath at the world's largest open
cemetery for the victims of the siege of Leningrad. The only reason
that the Russians were successful in stopping Hitler was because the
equipment was provided by the United States through lend-lease. It is
now ironic that we need to be providing lend-lease equipment to Ukraine
to stop war criminal Putin.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that we are not
saying that the lend-lease program can't be utilized, we are simply
asking that Congress has the ability to set forth terms as is our
responsibility.
We have an obligation to the American taxpayer to have accountability
for these dollars. It is lend-lease; it is not a gift. If it is a gift,
we should authorize it, but it is not. It is either lend-lease or it is
not.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we haven't
actually used the lend-lease provision yet, so there is nothing to
exercise oversight on. It is not clear whether or not it will be used.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address the larger issue which has been
raised, and that is the idea that there is a lack of accountability for
the funds going to Ukraine. Number one, that is a big Russian-Putin
propaganda talking point; and, two, completely wrong. It has been
investigated by the IG and a bunch of other folks and determined that
that is not happening.
These weapons are going precisely where they are supposed to be
going. We know this because if they weren't, Ukraine would have lost a
long time ago. They are under attack from a military roughly five times
the size of theirs that is much more well-armed and much more well-
equipped.
In order to defend themselves, they have to effectively use the
support that the United States, and again, 53 other nations are
providing to them. They have been effectively using that, which is how
they have been able to retake some of the territory that Russia took
from them a year and a half ago and protect the rest of the country
that Putin was trying to take.
Let's not buy into this myth that somehow this money is being wasted
and is not proper oversight. There is a legitimate argument to be had
about what you feel about the importance of Ukraine, but it is not
based on this money being wasted.
The money has been incredibly effectively used. That is why Ukraine
has been able to defend itself. Again, I believe we should help Ukraine
defend itself, which is what we are doing. As with all the other
amendments along these lines, I urge opposition to this one.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the robust debate. I want to
emphasize under the lend-lease program there are terms set forth. This
is something that we owe the American people. It is something that we
would expect if it is utilized for other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OGLES. 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 gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 26 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 118-142.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 27.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 1639.
At the end of subtitle B of title XVI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 16__. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR
SUSTAINMENT OF B83-1 BOMBS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2024 or any fiscal year
thereafter for the Department of Defense or the Department of
Energy may be obligated or expended for the sustainment of
the B83-1 bomb.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
{time} 1615
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Rules Committee permitting this to be in
order to be discussed. These are important issues, and we don't often
spend time on the floor discussing them.
In my career, I have worked to contain nuclear weapons, their danger
and cost. Many of these weapons we cannot afford and cannot afford to
use. Unfortunately, we continue to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on weapons that pose serious risk to safety and physical
security.
We have an opportunity this afternoon to take a small but significant
step prohibiting the use of funds for the B83-1 bomb.
This amendment reflects the conclusion of the 2022 Nuclear Posture
Review, which, unfortunately, was not reflected in the majority report.
The B83 was added to the nuclear arsenal 30 years ago and has
dramatically diminished utility.
Remember, Mr. Chair, we are on a trajectory to spend over $1.7
trillion in the next 30 years on nuclear weapons, most of which are no
longer necessary for our security. Eliminating support for the B83 will
save $1.5 billion over that period at no risk at all to our security.
As Everett Dirksen once famously said: ``A billion here and a billion
[[Page H3519]]
there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.''
Here is a chance to make a long-overdue reform at no cost to our
national security and save some real money.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, this amendment would remove a
section in the bill relating to the B83 nuclear gravity bomb and
prohibit any funding for B83 sustainment.
The B83 is the last megaton-class nuclear weapon in our arsenal. It
exists to destroy deeply buried targets. China, Russia, North Korea,
and Iran are putting some of the things they value most underground,
covered in steel and concrete. The B83 is currently our only way of
getting to those targets.
When the Biden administration proposed to begin retiring the B83 last
year, we asked: How are you going to replace them?
They didn't have an answer. So, Democrats and Republicans agreed on a
provision in the FY 2023 NDAA that allowed the Department to retire up
to 25 percent of those bombs but prohibited any further retirements
until the Department completed the study on how to replace that
capability.
As of this date, the Biden Pentagon is still studying the problem,
and we are not any closer to the B83 replacement.
The language included in our bill repeats the bipartisan compromise
struck in last year's NDAA--nothing more and nothing less.
I also note this amendment would prohibit all sustaining funding to
the B83. Not even the Biden administration thinks this is a good idea.
Stockpile sustainment includes the safety and surveillance activities
necessary to keep nuclear weapons safe and secure.
There is no exception in this amendment to allow for those activities
to continue. Completely cutting off funds is irresponsible.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, we are in the midst of a major overhaul of
our nuclear weapons system. It is a vast project and extraordinarily
expensive, and in that process of reviewing and modifying our nuclear
weapons system, this particular bomb becomes one of the items that is
not necessary going forward.
It basically has two uses. That is to wipe out a very large city with
one bomb--this is a super-megaton bomb--or to somehow go after deeply
buried and entrenched targets, and it is not particularly useful for
that. Therefore, the Nuclear Posture Review has determined that this
bomb should be retired.
The amendment before us today allows for the continuation of the
program to set about doing two things: one, retiring the 83-1; and two,
figuring out a more suitable weapon to go after deeply entrenched
targets. Therefore, this amendment is of use.
Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague from the Armed
Services Committee and the chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleagues and share the chairman's
concerns about the safety risks with this amendment.
I recognize that some of my colleagues believe we don't need the B83
and want to retire it, but regardless of how they feel about it, I hope
my colleagues can appreciate that completely cutting off funds for a
nuclear system all at once is dangerous.
These weapons were built many decades ago, and their components are
aging. That is why we are modernizing our deterrent. Yet, we need to do
ongoing safety and surveillance monitoring to ensure they remain safe
and secure, and that requires ongoing funding.
Defunding a nuclear weapon may sound like a good talking point, but
it is a reckless policy. Even the Biden administration understands
that. They are not proposing to cut off funding, but that is exactly
what this amendment would do.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. This is a
weapon whose time has passed.
It can only be delivered by the B-2 bomber, which is aging out. It
cannot be delivered by a B-52 or a B-21. This antiquated weaponry is
not enhancing our defense. It is an example of weaponry that really has
outlived its usefulness.
These are serious issues. We are looking at trying to contain
government spending. Some of my colleagues were willing to actually
risk the global economy to make their point and grind things to a halt.
This isn't low-hanging fruit. This is literally picking the fruit up
off the ground.
The security review, I think, is clear. This has outlived its
usefulness. We have to start somewhere.
The $1.7 trillion that we have in the pipeline for nuclear
modernization is, to be charitable, overkill. We need to start
someplace. We ought to start with dealing with the B83 consistent with
the national security review.
Mr. Chair, I urge approval of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Strong), who is an outstanding freshman member of the
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chair, I also rise in opposition to the amendment.
Chair Rogers is exactly right. I want to emphasize one of the points
that he made.
The language in the bill that this amendment is proposing to strike
is effectively the same language Congress agreed to last year. As the
chair said, this is a commonsense provision that extends a restriction
Congress passed on a bipartisan basis last year.
The administration wants to retire a nuclear weapon, and we are
saying to tell us how they are going to replace the capability before
they retire it.
That is a responsible policy, and I strongly oppose the amendment
striking this provision.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I believe this amendment is bad
policy. Not even the Biden administration is proposing to zero out this
funding. It would also be dangerous from a safety point of view.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Tlaib
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 118-142.
Ms. TLAIB. 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:
Strike section 1638.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Ranking
Member Smith, Mr. McGovern, and their staffs for working with us on
this critically important amendment and for their leadership throughout
this NDAA process.
As we know, Mr. Chair, with war criminals threatening to use nuclear
weapons and serious tensions along NATO's eastern border and in the
South China Sea, today's world is being redefined by escalating
tensions between major nuclear powers.
[[Page H3520]]
We don't have to look far back in history to see the danger here. The
Cold War was full of near misses and numerous crises that could have
gotten out of control and ended in nuclear war.
We are now entering a period of dangerous nuclear competition. As
such, we must remember one of the key lessons that the Cold War taught
us about nukes: We must preserve the ability to quickly step back from
the brink and clearly signal de-escalation when necessary.
Unfortunately, the current draft of the NDAA includes a provision
that prohibits our country from doing just that. Specifically, this
dangerous provision makes it impossible for our country to reduce our
stockpiles of intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, for any
reason, with no exceptions.
This inflexible policy was created and implemented by lawmakers in
promotion of economic considerations and not national security
priorities, Mr. Chair. Making national security decisions with the
potential to end humanity based on so-called economic considerations is
simply ridiculous. It is dangerous.
While we preserve this insanely expensive weapon that is obsolete,
many children in my district go to schools without clean drinking
water.
Maintaining this incredibly large stockpile of these weapons isn't
even necessary in maintaining a credible deterrent. The U.K., France,
India, and China all have very credible nuclear deterrents with much
smaller stockpiles, Mr. Chair.
The shortsighted policy places serious and concerning restraints on
the President of the United States, the United States Congress, and the
Department of Defense's ability to consider and modify the role ICBMs
play in our nuclear arsenal and our national defense, and it
unnecessarily wastes taxpayer dollars in the process.
Preserving our ability to reduce our nuclear stockpiles proved key to
reducing tensions, Mr. Chair, and achieving commonsense, planet-saving
arms control agreements during the Cold War.
Just as we have the ability to increase our nuclear defense in times
of crisis, we must have the ability to reduce our nuclear forces when
it is in our interest.
To be clear, Mr. Chair, this amendment does not change the size of
our nuclear forces. It merely allows for reasonable consideration and
debate in the future.
Mr. Chair, as the mother of two who dreams of a world where our
children and families are freed from threat and fear of nuclear war, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. This amendment would strike a provision in the
bill that prohibits the Nation's ICBM fleet from falling below its
current size of 400.
In 2014, the Obama administration decided to reduce the ICBM fleet to
400 missiles to comply with the New START Treaty. Ever since 2016, the
Congress has included provisions in the defense authorization bill to
effectively prohibit any further reduction.
The reason is simple. Nuclear threats are growing. In fact, just this
year, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command notified Congress that
China now possesses more ICBM launchers than the United States.
Now is not the time to be considering cuts to our ICBM fleet, which
remains central to our deterrent.
I want to quote former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John
Hyten, whom many of us know and respect. When asked specifically about
reducing the ICBM force, he replied: ``I don't understand how, with the
threats that we face today, which are growing, not shrinking, we would
make a decision today as a nation to lessen our overall strategic
deterrent. That makes no sense to me, and my best military advice is
that we do not do that.''
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, just to be clear, this amendment does not
change the size of our nuclear forces. It merely allows for reasonable
consideration and debate in the future, especially around de-
escalation. Again, our history shows during the Cold War, it was
critical.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), my good colleague.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's tenacity
and her leadership on this issue.
We have more than we need to have a credible deterrent; more than we
need. This small but important amendment would allow the military
leadership to evaluate how to evolve the needs.
The land-based nuclear ICBMs are far in excess of what we need, and
we have been seeing scandal in the papers in terms of the management of
them, drug use, cheating on tests, and they are not necessary for our
security. There is no security benefit in this sort of redundancy.
We ought to at least be able to examine the path going forward.
Locking into 400 permanently is lunacy, it is expensive, and it is
dangerous, as anybody who has read, for example, Eric Schlosser's book,
``Command and Control,'' to see how close we have come to nuclear
disaster with this stockpile.
The record is not very rosy. We at least ought to allow our military
leadership to evaluate what we need to do going forward.
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I also rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. The chairman is right. Now is not the time to open the door
to cutting the ICBM fleet.
China's ICBM forces are rapidly expanding, and Russia's nuclear
forces, the largest in the world, continue to grow, as well. In the
face of these growing threats, we need to strengthen our deterrent, not
weaken it.
Our ICBM forces continue to play a vital role in deterrence as the
most responsive leg of our nuclear triad.
Unlike submarines and bombers, land-based ICBMs are always ready to
execute Presidential orders and provide the day-to-day, 24/7 deterrent
that our Nation relies on. They have prevented nuclear attack for 60
years.
If you ever want to see nuclear proliferation in this world, start
cutting our nuclear forces. All the countries that rely on us will
attempt to secure their own nuclear capability. They will have no other
choice. That would destabilize the world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 45 seconds
remaining.
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to be clear with my colleagues. This amendment gives our
government more options that could avoid our world ending in nuclear
war. It is that simple. It doesn't reduce. It doesn't increase. It
literally allows for real consideration and debate and allows the
President of the United States and the Department of Defense to make
those decisions.
It is a commonsense amendment. Really, I think it is incredibly
important, especially, again, at a time of watching what is going on in
our world right now and what happened during the Cold War. It is
important for us to be able to de-escalate when needed, for us to be
able to again make more thoughtful decisions, not based on this kind of
scare tactic of let's do more, let's get this out there and everything
without actually considering some of the really important factors that
are around these very dangerous, again, world-ending weapons that we
have that could end in nuclear war in our world.
It is very, very important, again, for all my colleagues to
understand: This is not about reducing. This is about actually having
more options.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), an outstanding member of the Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chair, I stand in strong opposition to this bill, as
someone who had nuclear command and
[[Page H3521]]
control authorities when I was a general officer in the Air Force, as
someone who knows that nuclear and strategic deterrence is job number
one for our military.
Today, China is building a nuclear force to match ours and is more
modernized. Russia has a nuclear force today that matches ours in
numbers and is more modernized. This is not the time to reduce.
Former STRATCOM Commander Admiral Richard said the Chinese nuclear
expansion is breathtaking, and it is. Today is the day that we have to
modernize our forces, not talk about reducing them or cutting them
down.
I also point out that our ICBM force offers the highest rates of
readiness and alert capabilities. Once they are put in, they are the
cheapest to operate.
Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of this amendment. Our country cannot afford
it. Strategic deterrence can't afford it. Nuclear deterrence can't
afford it.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, this amendment will strike
commonsense provisions that have been consistent policies since 2016.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TLAIB. 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 gentlewoman from Michigan
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 29 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Roy
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 118-142.
Mr. ROY. 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 531, after line 11, insert the following:
(c) Prohibition on Establishment of Similar Positions.--No
Federal funds may be obligated or expended to establish a
position within the Department of Defense that is the same as
or substantially similar to--
(1) the position of Chief Diversity Officer, as described
in section 147 of title 10, United States Code, as such
section was in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act; or
(2) the position of Senior Advisor for Diversity and
Inclusion, as described in section 913(b) of the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283; 10 U.S.C. 147 note), as
such section was in effect before the date of the enactment
of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the House Armed Services Committee adopted an
amendment to repeal the statutory requirement that the Department of
Defense have a chief diversity officer, a senior adviser for diversity
and inclusion. I applaud that. It is a good thing. That is getting rid
of the requirement. I also believe that we should prohibit the ability
of the Department of Defense to have said position.
My amendment No. 30 seeks to amend section 904 to prohibit Federal
funds from being used to establish anything similar or any position
that is comparable to the chief diversity officer or senior adviser of
diversity and inclusion.
People say, well, why is that? The fact of the matter is we have a
situation right now where we are not even able to pay the kinds of
bonuses that are necessary.
We are not able to pay to retain our men and women in uniform. The
Air Force has been having budgetary problems, and we have got positions
that are being put out there, for example, that will pay $183,500,
multiple positions scattered all over the country in the name of
diversity.
The fact is the United States military is one of the few institutions
where the skills of the men or women on either side of you could mean
the difference between life and death.
The Department of Defense should be focused on one thing only:
securing the defense of the Nation. It is not in our national security
interests to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for diversity
training that continues to try and divvy us up by race.
That is the opposite of the direction we should be going, and in
fact, it sows constant division into the Department of Defense.
Does a person's race or skin color help them overcome hostile forces?
Does it allow us to win the next battle? Do rainbow bullets and flags
scare away folks?
Yet, that is what we are spending our time on, and we can't even pay
our men and women in uniform. Literally, the Air Force is saying sorry,
we can't give you bonuses right now because they have mismanaged their
budget, and they are having to spend money on positions like this.
China and our other enemies do not care about feelings. Why are we
funding divisive programs and divisive positions rather than positions
focused on advancing and training the strongest and best military in
the world?
That is the purpose of the amendment. It is great that this bill
eliminates the statutory requirement that we have such a position, but
we ought to end this divvying us up by race.
It is, in the words of the Chief Justice, a sordid business to divvy
us up by race rather than to ensure that we have the best trained and
finest fighting force in the world.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. My Republican colleagues continue to argue against this so-
called woke-ism in the military.
I ask my colleagues: Can they define what being woke is? According to
the Florida Governor's own legal team, it is defined as ``the belief
there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to
address them.''
Mr. Chair, I have news for my colleagues. We need to be woke. We have
decades and centuries of injustices and inequities heaped upon women,
the LGBTQ+ community, Black and Latino, Native American and Asian, and
so many other populations in our Nation.
Mr. Chair, while the Republicans and their friends across the country
try to ban books and erase our history from school textbooks, we are
fighting to defend the truth and our history.
Yes, I am woke, and more of my colleagues need to be woke.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The fact is these positions are consuming precious dollars that our
Air Force can't even use currently to pay their own personnel. Many in
the military are struggling to even find a way to pay the bonuses for
our current personnel and can't even meet their own recruiting needs
right now, falling woefully short in all of their recruiting needs.
The fact is we are struggling in recruiting, in significant part,
because we are turning the Department of Defense into a social
engineering experiment wrapped in a uniform. That is the truth.
Instead of focusing on killing people and blowing stuff up and having
the finest fighting force in the world, we are focused on dividing
people up by race. That is what we are doing.
If you look at all of the training materials at the Air Force
Academy, the training materials at West Point, the training materials
at the Naval Academy, they are chock-full of this, spending time on
that, and it is driving people away from wanting to serve.
It is driving people of all races away from wanting to serve because
we are focusing on race and division rather than unifying our United
States military behind the flag of the United States.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the whip of the Democratic Party.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, ever since the minutemen
gathered in Lexington, America's Armed Forces have been guardians of
freedom.
[[Page H3522]]
Generations of heroes have signed up for a singular cause: preserving
liberty for all. Regardless of party or politics, the House has come
together every year to put our national security and our military
families first--until now.
This year, the MAGA majority is using our national defense bill to
get one step closer to the only thing they really care about, a
nationwide abortion ban.
Mr. Chair, Americans are already paying the price for Republicans'
extremism; Americans like Amanda Zarowski who rushed to the hospital
last year after suffering a miscarriage.
Amanda needed an abortion procedure to prevent a deadly infection,
but her doctor sent her home, banned under Texas law from providing the
care she needed.
So she waited, mourning her daughter that she had lost, until she
went into septic shock, ended up in the ICU for 3 days, and almost lost
her life.
Now MAGA Republicans are aiming the same dangerous extremism at our
troops. They want the same control over the health, body, and lives of
America's servicemembers and their families.
That is not freedom. That is not patriotism. That is not national
security. That is tyranny.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I want to answer the most
important question: What does this have to do with national security?
It has to do with unit cohesion and with recruitment.
Interestingly, the survey data shows that almost three times as many
people say they are worried about joining the military because of their
concerns about discrimination as say that they are worried about the
military being too woke.
That is the point of this. The training is to make sure there is unit
cohesion, number one, and number two, that we can recruit from the
entire country.
It really comes down to whether or not you believe that we have a
history of discrimination against people of color, the LGBTQ community,
and women.
If you think that that just didn't happen and we don't have to worry
about it, then I guess this approach makes sense, but the history of
our country tells a very different story.
We need to address this in order to make sure that if you are a
woman, if you are a Black person, if you are trans or gay, the military
is going to give you a fair shake.
Let me remind everybody here. Just 13 years ago, we finally allowed
gay people to serve in the military. Every single Republican voted
against that. Every single one.
Do we really think that our national security would be stronger if we
drove all the gay people out of the military? We need all the
resources, all the talents from this country, and regrettably, we
haven't always done that. In what is shown, we need to address these
issues.
Now, the Republicans exaggerate this. They act like this is all we do
in recruitment. I have spent a lot of time with a lot of military
people. This is not all we do in training the military. It is something
that needs to be done to meet our recruitment goals.
{time} 1645
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, in closing, a recent story indicated:
Servicemembers forced to pay back signing bonuses after being removed
after COVID vaccine. They see it as a kick in the face.
The Air Force delays bonuses. Higher-than-projected personnel costs
are driving a shortfall in FY 2023 military personnel appropriation.
Meanwhile, we have jobs and notices under the chief diversity officer
and myriad other positions at $183,500. Why?
Why can't we get it right? Why can't we do the right thing and use
the dollars that we have appropriated to fund the men and women in
uniform to do their job? That is the question.
The fact is what we are doing is we are funding things like a
professor at the Air Force Academy posting about her desire to make
students learn how to ``identify the structural racism and inequality
that has been endemic in American history.''
A West Point slide obtained by FOIA stated that: ``White people and
people of color live radically different structured lives, and that in
order to understand racial inequality, it is first necessary to address
Whiteness.'' That is what we are paying for rather than paying for men
and women to defend this country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues insist that
government should run more like a business, yet they are focused on
creating divisions in the military instead of following the same
practices as our best defense companies--companies like Lockheed
Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon--who all have a chief diversity officer
role or equivalent.
We are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. Mr. Chairman, instead
of championing programs that will make it more enticing for
underrepresented Americans to join the service, they are instead trying
to make it more difficult for our military recruitment efforts to be
successful.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-advised amendment.
Let's put our servicemembers, our national security, and their needs
ahead of this amendment that does nothing but divide our country,
divide our military. Let's continue to have strength in our military,
and that strength comes from the diversity of our servicemembers.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Roy
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 118-142.
Mr. ROY. 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:
At the end of subtitle F of title VI, add the following:
SEC. 6__. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZING FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DODEA
FOR RACE-BASED THEORIES.
(a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds shall be authorized for
the Department of Defense Education Activity to promote race-
based theories described in subsection (b) or compel teachers
or students to affirm, adhere to, adopt, or process beliefs
in a manner that violates title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964
(b) Race-Based Theories Described.--The race-based theories
described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Any race is inherently superior or inferior to any
other race, color, or national origin.
(2) The United States is a fundamentally racist country.
(3) The Declaration of Independence or Constitution of the
United States are fundamentally racist documents.
(4) An individual's moral character or worth is determined
by the individual's race, color, or national origin.
(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, is
inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or
unconsciously.
(6) An individual, because of the individual's race, bears
responsibility for the actions committed by other members of
the individual's race, color, or national origin.
(c) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Protected speech not restricted.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to restrict the speech of a
student, teacher, or any other individual outside of a school
setting.
(2) Access to materials for the purpose of research or
independent study.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent an individual from accessing materials
that advocate theories described in subsection (b) for the
purpose of research or independent study.
(3) Contextual education.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent a school from stating theories described
in subsection (b) or assigning materials that advocate such
theories for educational purposes in contexts that make it
clear the school does not sponsor, approve, or endorse such
theories or materials.
(d) Promote Defined.--In this section, the term
``promote'', when used with respect to a race-based theory
described in subsection (b), means--
[[Page H3523]]
(1) to include such theories or materials that advocate
such theories in curricula, reading lists, seminars,
workshops, trainings, or other educational or professional
settings in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the
appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement;
(2) to contract with, hire, or otherwise engage speakers,
consultants, diversity trainers, and other persons for the
purpose of advocating such theories;
(3) to compel students to profess a belief in such
theories; or
(4) to segregate students or other individuals by race in
any setting, including in educational or training sessions.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 583, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense Education Activity, an
agency under the Department of Defense, runs 160 schools on military
bases across the globe, serving more than 69,000 children of military
personnel.
The amendment that I am offering would prohibit the Department of
Defense schools, DODEA, from using funds to promote or compel teachers
to adhere to critical race theory.
Specifically, this is what I on the floor was accused of offering as
being racist by the ranking member of the Rules Committee a little bit
earlier, but I was not on the floor to have the words stricken.
Here is what the language is in the amendment--compel teachers to
adhere to critical race theory, specifically the idea that:
``(1) Any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race,
color, or national origin.
``(2) The United States is a fundamentally racist country.
``(3) The Declaration of Independence or Constitution of the United
States are fundamentally racist documents.
``(4) An individual's moral character or worth is determined by the
individual's race, color, or national origin.
``(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual's race, is
inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
``(6) An individual, because of the individual's race, bears
responsibility for the actions committed by other members of the
individual's race, color, or national origin.''
Instead of working to empower parents, our education system is using
critical race theory outside of the Department of Defense, but in this
case inside the Department of Defense, to turn schools into a
propaganda machine dedicated to raising students up that judge one
another by race and hate our country's founding principles.
Teaching kids to hate the country they live in, to view their fellow
citizens as enemies because of the color of their skin is wrong. It is
anti-American, and it is societal suicide.
Critical race theory is an anti-American ideology that seeks to pick
winners and losers based on skin color. We are seeing a large-scale
effort to impose this tyranny over the minds of men and our children
through taxpayer-funded indoctrination of this ideology.
I believe we must preserve the foundational American truth that
people are valuable regardless of their skin color and prevent critical
race theory from being used to divvy us up by race further.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on amendment No. 31, which is an attempt to sanitize the
American history taught by the Department of Defense Education
Activities.
I rise as the first Black woman elected to this body from Virginia,
who grew up listening to my parents and grandparents tell stories of
their lives in the Jim Crow South and its impact on their lives,
families, and communities.
I rise as someone born and raised in the birthplace of American
democracy and the birthplace of American slavery; the home of the
father of our country, the first Commander in Chief of the Army, the
first President of the United States, who is watching this debate right
now on the wall, who owned and enslaved human beings; the home of
Thomas Jefferson, who also owned enslaved human beings, but wrote the
resounding words of the Declaration of Independence 247 years ago that
we celebrated last week: Ideals that all men are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, he did not mean me.
I am from the home of the architect of the Constitution, which 13
years later, starts with the words: ``We the people.''
It did not include me.
Instead, the Constitution counted my enslaved ancestors as three-
fifths of a person and did not grant us American citizenship until
ratification of the 14th Amendment.
For nearly 350 years, slavery and Jim Crow created inequity in our
communities that still exists today, and the laws that struck down Jim
Crow were not a magic wand that erased those impacts.
As more and more people who lived during Jim Crow are dying, we need
to tell their stories. We need to teach the good, the bad, and the ugly
of our history to show how it shaped us as a nation so that we can heal
from it.
This amendment teaches a delusional and irresponsible history.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, an article written by the spouse of a member of
our military in The Federalist and the mother of a former Department of
Defense education student talked about the training that she discovered
when she dove into what their students were being taught.
She saw that there would be an equity and access summit for teachers
and administrators. She said: Knowing that equity means different
things to different people, I wanted to get a sense of what it meant,
and I was floored.
They released a video of summit clips in which a principal talks
about a student who felt like he had done something wrong because he is
a young, White male. The teacher said she didn't know what to tell him,
but she seemed pleased with the breakthrough. Perhaps she was just
following the lead of DODEA's diversity, equity, and inclusion chief,
Kelisa Wing, who is currently under investigation or at that time was
under investigation by DOD for a history of disparaging comments toward
White people.
The fact here is, the sordid business of divvying us up by race is
what we are trying to move past, and having our Department of Defense
schools teaching the children of our men and women in uniform to focus
on race and the divvying us up by race is inherently wrong and
undermines the future cohesion of not just the military but the
country. The purpose here is to say that we don't need our Department
of Defense schools to be engaged in this indoctrination.
I heard earlier the questions here about all these stats about how
this improves all of our recruiting. If that is so, why is our
recruiting in the toilet? It is in the toilet because if you talk to
recruits, they are sick of it. They don't like the indoctrination.
Their friends listen to it, and they say: ``I don't want any part of
it.''
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment
and associate myself with the very powerful statement made by my
colleague from Virginia, it is just part of a very extreme agenda that
is threatening to hijack the Nation's annual defense bill, which
usually passes in a bipartisan way.
One of the core things they are trying to do through the NDAA, make
no mistake, is to further their agenda to ban abortion on a nationwide
basis, and I am here to sound the clarion call. They are going to be
trying this week after week through the next few months.
The Jackson amendment, amendment No. 5, which we will be voting on in
a few minutes, is a direct threat to the health and well-being of our
servicemembers and their loved ones. If that amendment were to pass, it
would put abortion access even further out of
[[Page H3524]]
reach for our servicemembers, in particular, for the over 2 million
people who are stationed in States where they have little to no access
to abortion.
Even more appalling, this amendment would force a servicemember who
was raped by one of her own colleagues or superiors to travel at their
own expense to terminate a resulting pregnancy.
Our servicemembers fight for our country every day. As lawmakers, we
should be prepared to fight to protect their freedoms, not voting to
take their freedoms away.
Mr. Chair, I urge objection to this amendment, the Jackson No. 5
amendment, and all of these extreme amendments which are taking us away
from the critical functions we should be providing.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, in closing, we are endowed by our Creator with
certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Life. I can't help but notice the focus of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle of terminating life.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, what this amendment before us
says, it says you cannot teach that the Constitution is a racist
document.
As Mrs. McClellan pointed out, the Constitution says that Black
people are three-fifths of a person. The problem here is that we are
not allowing with this amendment to have an honest discussion. Within
the military, within society as a whole, you can't have a functioning
unit, a functioning institution if you don't understand this history
properly.
This amendment requires us to literally whitewash history. If you are
a Black person thinking about serving in the military, and you know
that is the military you are walking into, you are going to be worried
about it.
What DEI does is it gives an opportunity to assure people that they
will be treated equally, assurance that they are needed precisely
because of amendments like this.
Our country has a rich and complicated history. A lot of it is very
good, but we need to be honest about what it is if we are going to
recruit from the diverse population that we need to recruit from.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROY. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
____________________