[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.

                          ____________________