[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4620-H4628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                  Amendment No. 173 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 173 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 45, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000) (increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, the amendment that I have offered increases 
funding for the inspector general by $20 million for an Office of the 
Special Inspector General for Ukraine Assistance, if authorized, to 
enhance the oversight and accountability measures for funds 
appropriated for Ukraine, increasing the inspector general by $20 
million.
  Over the last year and half, Congress has appropriated approximately 
$113 billion in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
  I am one of these individuals that believes that we did have 
agreements with Ukraine, and we have got to recognize those from the 
mid-1990s when we asked them to denuclearize and work with our partners 
in Eastern Europe.
  I also don't believe that we ought to be just providing an endless 
supply of funds to Ukraine with no clear mission, with no clear 
accountability of the dollars, and without clear accountability of 
whether NATO and our European allies are upholding their end of the 
bargain.
  This is a step to try to rectify at least one part of that: by making 
sure there is a fully empowered inspector general, to make sure that 
the information that we have is complete, and that we have a full 
understanding of every dollar that has already been appropriated and 
might be appropriated in the future, and to make sure that we are 
tracking it to the level that is necessary.
  There have been a number of different issues that we have identified 
in the past. For example, if you look at other conflicts like 
Afghanistan, the lead for the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
found at least $19 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds sent to Afghanistan 
was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse from 2002 to 2020.
  It is critically important that we track this and follow it and 
understand it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition only to have a 
discussion.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, let it be said loud and clear, the chair 
and I and all the members on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee 
have been bird-dogging, asking questions, wanting to have great reports 
on what is happening with the money.
  You are in lockstep with what your ultimate goal is and what we have 
been doing on the committee. In fact, we fund a lot of this. In 
general, I support the idea of this amendment, but the bill already 
includes funding the oversight of all of the dollars we are spending to 
support Ukraine.
  I am kind of a penny-pincher, believe it or not. You are smiling, but 
I ask people a lot of questions. I won't get into that. I ask a lot of 
questions. I am kind of concerned about some duplicity and 
inefficiencies in here, which I know is something we are striving to 
make sure that that doesn't happen.
  Madam Chair, keeping track of every dollar, especially when it comes 
to DOD is something that when I was on the Oversight Committee during 
the Iraq war and the way that we didn't have oversight over equipment 
and dollars and cold, hard cash that was being delivered there is 
something that I am very, very interested in and support doing.
  I thank the gentleman for the amendment. The committee has it in 
hand. I want you to know that this is a bipartisan, full Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee thing. We are asking these questions every time 
somebody is in to see us.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I 
think we have a general agreement on what we are trying to accomplish.
  I would note that in the NDAA we passed an authorization for this, 
and this would be the appropriation necessary to carry it out. That was 
the desire of our efforts to try to put a birds-eye view on this across 
agencies to ensure that dollars are being spent the way they are 
supposed to.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. As the 
ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee just said, the Defense 
Subcommittee is united in this entire process to try to bring 
accountability to the table. It is practical and it is rational that we 
have complete accountability and oversight.
  That is why this bill contains many new oversight provisions, 
including notification requirements before funds are spent, a GAO 
review of the Defense Department's execution of Presidential draw-down 
authority, a reporting requirement on increasing burden-sharing for 
Ukraine, and a requirement that the inspector general review the 
Department's end use monitoring program. These are provisions that go 
directly to the heart of the gentleman's concerns about accountability.

  This bill also includes funding for a Special Inspector General for 
Ukraine, if authorized, in the National Defense Authorization Act. This 
amendment furthers these efforts.
  Madam, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I think I can speak for a good segment 
of our Defense Subcommittee, including those on the other side of the 
aisle, and I encourage a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

[[Page H4621]]

  

  Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
I know that accountability is a foreign concept in Washington, but 
accountability builds trust. It is very important, considering the 
track record of this administration, considering the track record of 
the Department of Defense that hasn't been audited, and considering the 
track record of the Ukrainian Government, that the American people do 
have proper accountability.
  Accountability will be the key to success for the very brave 
Ukrainian people fighting the fight against evil and winning that 
fight. I will strongly urge support for this amendment. It is a very, 
very serious war, and we don't want to have another pull-out like 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. ROY. Madam 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 amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 174 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 174 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  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 the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The salary of Cyrus Salazar shall be reduced to 
     $1.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, the amendment I am offering reduces the salary 
of Cyrus Salazar, the director of the Department of Defense's Office 
for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to $1. You might ask why we would 
do that.
  It is a power that we have in the House of Representatives under the 
Holman rule to try to restrain the executive branch, both in terms of 
expense, dollars and how they are being used, and in terms of what they 
are being used for.
  The American people are frankly getting a little tired of a 
Department of Defense that is being taken far too often off mission, I 
hear it all the time. I hear it from veterans. I hear it from Active-
Duty servicemembers. I hear it from recruits. With recruiting numbers 
at low levels, with morale at questionable levels, we need to re-
instill in our military a crystal clear focus on mission first.
  Importantly, when we are--to use the gentlewoman's term, which I take 
to heart--pinching pennies and trying to find dollars, we need to stop 
racking up $33 trillion in debt when we can't even figure out how to 
fund the salaries of our rank-and-file men and women in uniform at the 
level that we might need to when we are dealing with issues of 
increasing health costs, when we are dealing with issues of having a 
fully armed military with the latest and greatest technology to defeat 
China.
  It would seem questionable that, for example, we would have positions 
like the following: The Air Force is looking for a supervisory 
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion accessibility officer in Arlington, 
Virginia, that will pay between $155,700 to $183,500 per year.
  Another one, the Air Force is looking for a Diversity, Equity, and 
Inclusion manager to work at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, that 
pays between $94,199 to $122,459 per year. There is another position in 
Alaska. There is another position in Alabama. I could go down the list, 
and this is the top of that pyramid.
  What we are trying to say is we shouldn't do this. We need to stop 
this. We need to stop diverting the mission of the military, which is a 
laudable goal of ensuring you got a workforce that is representative of 
the population of this country. You don't need an entire bureaucracy 
within the Pentagon to do it that is then perpetuating a lot of 
divisive policies.
  For example, West Point Academy slides told cadets that ``whiteness'' 
is ``a location of structural advantage, of race privilege,'' is ``a 
standpoint or place from which White people look at themselves and the 
rest of society,'' and ``refers to a set of cultural practices that are 
usually unmarked and unnamed.''
  There is another, Kelisa Wing, former chief diversity officer at 
DOD's schools. ``I'm so exhausted at these White folx in these PD 
[professional development] sessions. This lady actually had the 
CAUdacity to say that Black people can be racist too.''
  This is not the kind of thing that should be going on at the United 
States military and the Pentagon. This is one step of many that we need 
to take to return the military to its core mission and end this social 
engineering wrapped in a uniform, rather than doing the job of 
defending this great country.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, Cyrus Salazar, as has been pointed out, is 
the director of the Department of Defense for Diversity, Equity, and 
Inclusion, and is charged with promoting diversity within the DOD.
  The Department has a responsibility to make sure all Americans are 
welcome in the service of our Nation and that it reflects America's 
defense.
  I worked in the private sector until basically, I mean, I served 
part-time in city councils and that, but I worked in the private sector 
until I came here to Congress. I still have a lot of friends in the 
private sector where I represent 3M. Right across the river in 
Minneapolis, there are General Mills, Target, and I could go on and on 
with the companies that we have.
  These companies are competing for talent, whether it is the person 
who is helping you at the Target store with the checkout or whether it 
is the person that is being recruited to go into teaching or a person 
who is going to become a CEO or a compliance officer or a bank auditor. 
We are all competing in the workforce right now.
  Our labor trades are competing for the workforce. There are fewer and 
fewer people entering the workforce, so there is a great competition 
going on. These companies have diversity offices. They are going out 
and talking to groups that maybe have never been in the industry 
before. I will use the building trades again.
  In our building trades they are knocking down the doors going to our 
high schools. They have people just working on diversity, saying, these 
are great paying jobs, let me tell you about them. Maybe nobody in your 
family has been a plumber, maybe nobody in your family has been an 
electrician or a pipe fitter, or maybe you never worked road 
construction. These are great jobs for you. They are going out and they 
are recruiting these people.
  We are up against the same challenge of recruitment and retention 
that the private sector is. In fact, we are competing for the same 
workforce. Of course, in my opinion, we need to be doing some of this 
diversity and inclusion.
  The gentleman from Texas, when he quoted what was said at West Point, 
I totally agree, those are horrific statements and that person is gone 
and they should be gone. But the DOD is struggling with a challenge. 
Right now, our civilian workforce doesn't reflect the diversity of 
other Federal agencies.
  We are trying to get more women, more men, more everybody in this 
country to know that the DOD is a great place to work and that once you 
are there, you are going to love the job, and we are going to give you 
the tools in the toolbox to do it.

  Madam Chair, I will close with this. One of the things that I have 
been working on is cybersecurity and IT and linguistics. I come from a 
culturally rich district. If you come to University Avenue in St. Paul, 
the diversity of the restaurants and small businesses that are there, 
it will blow your mind away. It is rich in diversity.
  But we still find, even all being in the same neighborhoods and 
communities, we still have to do outreach to say you are welcome. One 
of those places is cybersecurity. A lot of these businesses are being 
hacked. They are having issues with it. We are going to the high 
schools and to the community colleges, and we are looking at folks 
like--there is a place for you in cybersecurity. They are like, me? 
Yeah, you.

[[Page H4622]]

Sometimes people need to be welcomed in, they need to have the 
opportunity to be recruited.
  I really think that having someone that oversees opportunity, equal 
opportunity, diversity and inclusion, making sure that disability 
programs--we have our servicemembers who come back and sometimes have 
to be relocated into another position or a job, that is what this 
office can do.
  I know we have gotten down this track of how we can divide ourselves 
talking about diversity and inclusion. I want us to embrace it in a way 
to have a more unified workforce and to recruit and retain the best and 
the brightest to work in the Department of Defense.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time because I think we 
have had this discussion over and over again today.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, the United States military is one of the few 
institutions in America where the skills of the men or women on either 
side of you could mean the difference between life and death.
  At the end of the day, it embodies I think Dr. King's notion of 
judging men and women on the content of their character, not the color 
of their skin. Yet, the Biden administration is infatuated with 
divvying us up by race, with divvying us up by our immutable 
characteristics.
  The fact is, with all due respect--and I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
remarks and the tone in which they were offered--corporate America is 
slashing DEI officers amid a backlash of diversity programs across the 
country.
  There is a story right here about the numbers of how many offices 
have been slashed over the last year, in part because they don't add 
much value to the bottom line in which the economy is hurting and 
people are suffering; and also in part because they are getting a 
backlash from having so much focus on divvying us up by race and all 
these characteristics--it is not actually good.
  We are seeing this in countless corporations across the country. 
There is story after story, if you just Google it and see what is going 
on out there. I think the Department of Defense should be in line with 
where we are seeing our society recoil at this divvying us up by race. 
This is one way to accomplish that objective.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duarte). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 175 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 175 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  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 the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     the Department of Defense or the Defense Equal Opportunity 
     Management Institute may be used to carry out the observance 
     of Pride Month as specified in the Cultural Observances and 
     Awareness Events List of the Department of Defense and 
     authorized by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
     and Readiness.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, 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 amendment that is being put forward here 
would say that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
to carry out the observance of Pride Month authorized by the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for the Cultural 
Observances and Awareness Events list.
  First of all, that whole title should give you a little bit of pause. 
At the end of the day, in line with the amendment that I just offered, 
the goal here should be to ensure that our military is focused on the 
mission and building cohesion to accomplish the mission.

                              {time}  1400

  Now we have got the Department of Defense focusing on, for example, 
the Air Force releasing a memo entitled Department of the Air Force 
Observance of LGBTQ Pride Month which empowered installation commanders 
to plan and conduct appropriate activities in honor of Pride Month, 
which they then did. That then resulted in, for example, the Department 
of the Navy issuing a memo declaring June's month theme, ``Peace, Love, 
Revolution.'' There was a flyer advertising Robins Air Force Base 2023 
Pride Month events, which included information for servicemembers and 
their families to attend the Pride Night game night and unity and 
diversity color run. Because some of the colleagues voiced opposition, 
Nellis Air Force Base approved and then canceled a scheduled drag show 
to celebrate Pride Month.
  What on Earth are we doing? I represent Fort Sam Houston in San 
Antonio. I represent countless veterans attached to or who have served 
at Joint Base San Antonio or otherwise in central Texas. My 
constituents come to me, and they just shake their heads, and say: What 
are we doing? What happened?
  We need to beat China. We need to be able to be in a position to 
carry out multiple-front wars around the globe, if necessary. We need 
to have the finest fighting force in the world with the best technology 
and the best training.
  Again, it is one thing to respect someone's private life and 
differences, but to carry out your objective in the office without 
having the Department of Defense promoting events dividing us up by our 
various characteristics. That is the reality.
  On social media, the marines tweeted a Pride Month image with 
rainbow-tipped bullets on a marine helmet featuring the words: Proud to 
serve. I am sure the Chinese military is quaking in its boots with the 
rainbow-tipped bullets being tweeted around the world.
  The Air Force tweeted an image with the silhouette of an airman 
saluting in front of a Pride flag. The Navy changed their logo on 
social media to ships and aircraft in front of a rainbow flag.
  Again, that is the flag right there: Red, white, and blue. That is 
the flag--no other flag--when we are talking about what the United 
States military should be standing in front of and should be 
projecting.
  I have very few constituents who disagree with this sentiment that we 
should be focused on having a military that is designed to, when called 
upon, blow stuff up and kill people in defense of this country, as 
needed, and to be the best fighting force to accomplish that objective 
in the world. They need to be trained and to have a clear mission. And, 
oh by the way, side note, while I am sitting here on the floor talking 
about the Department of Defense appropriations, the military should not 
be engaged in endless conflict without congressional engagement in 
terms of authorization of the use of military force, which, by the way, 
we were supposed to be addressing by the end of this month. I will save 
that for a different speech.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we honor and celebrate many cultural events. 
We celebrate Hanukkah on the National Mall. We light a Christmas tree 
outside in front of the Capitol. When my father was with the DOD, he 
served in many bases that the gentleman mentioned in Texas. I can tell 
you about some observations that I had of celebrating Texas pride. Our 
country has a history of celebrating a lot of things.
  Black History Month was first observed in 1976 by President Ford. 
Yes, we celebrate Pride Month, and we celebrate other cultural 
awareness months. This is national Hispanic Pride Month. What they do 
when the DOD does that is they show that they are committed to creating 
and affirming an inclusive environment and that everybody is welcome 
with their diversity. Everybody has somebody to offer.
  At a time when the LGBTQ community, along with so many other minority 
groups in this country, are facing attacks and threats--just think of 
what happened, Mr. Chair, we had a moment of silence on this House 
floor after what happened at the Pulse nightclub shooting in Florida--
it is more important than ever that people know that we have their 
backs when they are under attack.

[[Page H4623]]

  Mr. Chair, I was in the chair that you are in when this floor ended 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the NDAA, and that made our military feel open 
and more inclusive. I think of a dear friend of mine who served in the 
Navy, who served when he couldn't be who he was openly. He was serving 
proudly in the Navy, but he had to hide who he was until he was 
discharged, and then he felt he could come out. It was a burden that he 
carried with him.
  This amendment has no place in the Defense bill. I don't think it has 
any place in the legislation that we do here. We are about coming 
together as a country, not trying to fight what divides us. We need to 
be focused on what unites us. One of the things that unites us is we 
are a country that, awkwardly at times, not everybody agrees all the 
time, but we are a diverse community. We celebrate that.
  I mean, the people who came here when there were originally Thirteen 
Colonies came here because they were looking for freedom to be who they 
were. It was religious freedom at the time, but that is what they were 
looking for.
  The Federal Government recognizes these cultural awareness months. 
The House of Representatives recognizes many cultural awareness events. 
We do that because we honor the contributions and services of all 
communities. Pride Month should be no different.
  Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I will be brief in the interest of moving things 
along. The only thing I would note is, with respect to the difference, 
for example, of talking about Christmas trees and celebrating the birth 
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and putting up a Pride flag, I 
would say those things are different.

  I would also note that there have been problems at the Department of 
Defense with people expressing their faith. In fact, there are 
Christians who are being limited in their ability to have Christian 
displays in their offices, and we had to have groups like First Liberty 
go litigate it in court in order to defend their right to be able to 
display said Christian symbols and statements in their office cubicle.
  This is what is going on at the Department of Defense, and people 
don't understand it.
  I think this is a commonsense effort to refocus our military on the 
mission to which it should be focused. Acknowledging that we are a 
diverse community is great, but the Department of Defense can 
acknowledge that diversity and bring people together to carry out the 
mission without perpetuating essentially social engineering at the 
Department of Defense.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I will close in just a minute. I mentioned a 
friend. I had several friends in high school--I graduated in 1972--who 
were gay. They hid the fact that they were. They served when 
recruitment was kind of down after the Vietnam war. They served 
honorably and had honorable discharges. When we were in markup in the 
full committee, Mr. Pocan shared this, and it was very moving to me, so 
I am going to share it. It refers to the sacrifice that our LGBTQ 
friends made before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is a quote on a tombstone 
of Sergeant Leonard Matlovich. ``When I was in the military, they gave 
me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.''
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. 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 ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. 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. 176 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 176 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  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 the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8155.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for the Reynolds Scholars Program of the Brute 
     Krulak Center for Innovation and Future Warfare of Marine 
     Corps University.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, 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 amendment that I am offering here would 
prohibit funds from being available under this act for the Marine Corps 
University Krulak Center's Reynolds Scholars program.
  Now, I was unaware of this, relatively blissfully, I don't know, a 
couple months ago, but then the Marine Corps University's Reynolds 
Scholars Program at the Krulak Center is a year-long program for 
students who wish to explore ``gender and security issues.'' That may 
not have jumped up onto my radar screen, but I became aware because the 
official Krulak Center Twitter account publicly criticized the user for 
calling this program ``woke'' and calling this individual a stain on 
the legacy of marines.
  Well, it seems inappropriate for a federally funded center, so it 
caught my attention. Then it became clear to me when I had a syllabus 
presented to me about what was being presented. Here are a few examples 
of the program themes listed in the official syllabus: ``Gendering 
War.'' ``What is gender and how is it different from biological sex?'' 
``How are war narratives constructed through gender discourse?'' ``How 
can we imagine nonviolent masculinities and the role they might play in 
conflict?''
  We are pretty darn violent.
  ``How might the United States Marine Corps strategic narrative be 
problematic for women, peace and security?''
  Again, this is just something that my constituents, and I think a 
large block of the American electorate--dare I say a very sizable 
majority--would say, what are you doing?
  I mean, again, let's assume we were swimming in money. Let's just 
assume that we had money coming out of our ears, that we had a $33 
trillion surplus that we had banked up that we were just saving for a 
rainy day to spend $33 trillion. I don't know how you do that, by the 
way. Let's just assume that was the case. Let's assume we had a $2 
trillion surplus this year instead of a $2 trillion deficit. Let's 
assume further that our recruiting numbers were excellent. Let's assume 
further that we had really strong morale. Let's assume further that our 
healthcare costs in the military were manageable or that our healthcare 
costs anywhere in this country at all were manageable in the post-
Obamacare world in which prices have skyrocketed and insurance 
companies have made gazillions of dollars. Again, that is another 
speech for another day.
  In that imaginary world where that were the state of things, would 
this still be a good idea to spend even $1 or $10 or $100,000 or $5 
million or whatever the amount is that might be here, would it be a 
good idea to spend that money for this: ``How are war narratives 
constructed through gendered discourse?'' ``How can we imagine 
nonviolent masculinities and the role they might play in conflict?''
  Again, the American people just want us to focus on making this 
government do its core constitutional duty, do it within its fiscal 
responsibilities; do it in terms of providing a mission to defend this 
country; secure our borders, provide for the general welfare in the 
sense that you are allowing the American people to do what they do best 
if the government gets out of the way. Stop bleeding money, stop 
racking up debt, defend the United States, stop social engineering, and 
just do your damn job as Congress. I think that ought to be a pretty 
simple goal and a bipartisan goal.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time to strongly oppose this 
amendment.

[[Page H4624]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this feels to me like another attempt by the 
majority to go after minority groups in the military.
  Here is the history. The Reynolds Scholars Program was designed to 
study women in the military and was named after Lori Reynolds, a 
decorated female Marine Corps general.
  The program was established to comply with the Peace and Security Act 
of 2017, the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the Department 
of Defense Women, and the Peace and Security Strategic Framework, so 
this is something that Congress has weighed in on.
  Let me read the program description to you. The gentleman from Texas 
has read some excerpts, and I didn't see them in full context. I will 
take them at face value that he is upset with this, but I will read 
some of the descriptions for you. I can cite the sources and put them 
in the full remarks later for the committee to have.
  `` . . . women account for the majority of individuals adversely 
affected by today's armed conflicts, and it affirms the critical role 
women play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-
building.''
  `` . . . advocates for the recognition of diverse perspectives that 
increase military effectiveness, and [b] supports the empowerment of 
half the world's population as equal partners in preventing and 
managing conflict.''
  Now, I have not been to the scholarship program, but I have traveled 
with military, I have traveled with State, and I have been with women 
who have been adversely affected by armed conflicts--raped, tortured, 
bullied, harassed--and it is often our military and our military women 
who sometimes in these conflicts are having conversations with them and 
trying to get the facts if there have been war crimes committed. It 
takes a very special person to do that.
  It affirms the critical role, as I said, that women play in the 
prevention and resolution of conflicts and peacekeeping. President 
Bush, the Bush administration, when I was first serving in Congress, 
actually had me go to Yemen and speak with our military at a graduation 
of Yemen soldiers that we had been working and training with. Part of 
the message that the State Department and the Bush administration and 
our Department of Defense wanted to communicate was the importance of 
young girls going to school.

  In Chad, I witnessed, in the refugee camp after the Janjaweed had 
attacked an area, not only what had happened to the women there, but 
our military female leaders interacting with the troops there in Chad 
that we were working with, peacekeeping troops reinforcing that women 
needed to be treated with dignity and respect.
  I will end this particular part of talking about this by saying: 
Often when we go to build peace, whether it is sustaining the peace in 
Northern Ireland, whether it is looking for peace in conflict in 
Africa, whether it is working with terrible situations in Latin 
America, it is the women whom we bring to the table who can get the 
attention of the community, the community elders, because they talk 
about their children and the need for peace.
  I don't know if these people were graduates from this program, but I 
have seen where women make a difference. The male members of our 
military who are part of these programs are indispensable, and they are 
very important.
  As a woman who stands up for our women in the military and our allies 
in the military, I have to tell you, I see nothing woke, I see nothing 
woke about trying to understand the intersection of women and conflict. 
I only see it as a benefit.
  In my opinion, this amendment is antifemale in what it is purporting 
to take away from the scholarship program moving forward. I oppose this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I have nothing more to say except that I 
don't think it is intentional sometimes some of the things that are 
happening on the floor today, but one of the things that we chant as 
kids is ``Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never 
hurt me.'' Words hurt; they hurt.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman that words hurt. The 
question is, how those words are deployed and what they do for the 
mission of our United States military. When I see taxpayer dollars 
going to fund a syllabus which was not something in public view, which 
then became in public view after an online kind of disagreement with 
things like, What is gender and how is it different from biological 
sex? And all of the things that we are focusing on, and we have talked 
about it in other contexts with funding transgender surgeries and 
funding other manners of the social engineering currently going on that 
I believe is ripping apart the fabric of our country, the strength of 
our military, and the cohesion of the finest fighting force in the 
world. I believe it is important for us to try to maintain that.
  I am enormously proud of the women whom I have nominated for 
academies. I met with women and men just 2 weeks ago with my staff in a 
retreat where we went to the United States Naval Academy. I am 
enormously proud of their service, proud of everybody who has worn the 
uniform and been honorably discharged for their service, but we need to 
stand up for a military that is focused on its mission.
  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 amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 177 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 177 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  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 the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to implement any of the following executive orders:
       (1) Executive Order 13990, relating to Protecting Public 
     Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle 
     the Climate Crisis.
       (2) Executive Order 14008, relating to Tackling the Climate 
     Crisis at Home and Abroad.
       (3) Section 6 of Executive Order 14013, relating to 
     Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and 
     Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration.
       (4) Executive Order 14030, relating to Climate-Related 
     Financial Risk.
       (5) Executive Order 14057, relating to Catalyzing Clean 
     Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability.
       (6) Executive Order 14082, relating to Implementation of 
     the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation 
     Reduction Act of 2022.
       (7) Executive Order 14096, relating to Revitalizing Our 
     Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, 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 amendment before us would prohibit any of the 
funds in the Defense appropriations bill from being used to carry out 
President Biden's executive orders on climate change.
  Our military should be, as I have stated in these other amendments, 
focused on deterring and, if necessary, defeating our adversaries. 
President Biden wants to continue to sacrifice the strength of our 
defense in deference to the climate cult.
  In 2021, Department of Defense spokesman John Kirby refused to say 
China was a bigger national security threat to the United States than 
climate change. He called them ``equally important'' and said it 
doesn't do anybody good to make a relative assessment of national 
security issues.
  Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has said ``climate change is an 
existential threat to our Nation's security.''
  Secretary of State John Kerry literally travels to China to discuss 
climate change, not China's increased aggression against Taiwan, not 
its expansion in the Pacific, not the oppression of its people.
  Biden's executive orders have served as the catalyst for massive 
reforms in the Department of Defense that compromise and undermine 
national security to advance a climate fetish.

[[Page H4625]]

  The Department of Defense's Climate Adaptation Plan includes radical 
proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the expense of our 
warfighting capabilities. According to the plan, the Department of 
Defense has identified climate change as a critical national security 
issue. It contains mandates on ``environmental justice'' because why 
miss an opportunity to push such an ideology.
  The Department of Defense says it will transition to 100 percent 
carbon-free electricity, meaning America's war machine will literally 
depend on the wind and the Sun unless they are going to be moving, I 
guess, nuclear power, which my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have not been all too quick to help us move.
  Meanwhile, China has 1100 coal-fired plants and is building close to 
2 a week. We have been building zero. We have been constraining the 
development of natural gas-fired electricity, and we have only recently 
finally had one nuclear plant get launched I think for the first time 
since the mid-1970s.
  The DOD has mandated that all nontactical vehicles be EVs by 2035. It 
is fair to say the tactical vehicles we need to win wars are not far 
behind. That means our defense will become wholly dependent on Chinese 
batteries and other critical minerals. I always wonder why my 
colleagues are not too bothered by the fact that 80 percent of these 
batteries are using cobalt, and they are being mined heavily by slave 
labor, often child labor.
  There doesn't seem to be any concern about what that means by 
continuing to perpetuate a mandate to send us down that road when it 
won't dent CO2 production. It is living in a fantasy land. 
If you eliminated the internal combustion engine in the United States 
tomorrow you might dent all of worldwide CO2 production by 
about 1 percent, 1\1/2\ percent. Meanwhile, China and India are pumping 
it out in mass volumes. Yet we are going to inject this directly into 
the veins of our national security.
  That is why I offered this amendment and believe that it is 
critically important, so that we can again have our military focused on 
a core mission of defending this country.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the fact is, our Earth is warming. The fact 
is, our climate is changing, and it is unprecedented. I have been to 
Alaska several times. The last time I was on some of our bases in 
Alaska, they were dealing with permafrost now not being reliable to 
land planes on the runways that we have constructed. The Army Corps of 
Engineers is up there trying to figure out what they do about what is 
happening with the permafrost and the thawing that they are seeing to 
make our buildings be resilient and sustainable and how do we build 
buildings in the future to address this.
  That is just in Alaska. I won't even talk about what has been 
happening with some of our radar facilities sliding off into the ocean.
  The start of the hurricane season has begun, and it is historic. 
Hurricane Hilary brought southern California its first tropical storm 
watch. That is new. We know that these weather events are worldwide, 
and we know that they know no boundaries, as evidenced by the recent 
Canadian wildfires.
  The U.S. has already set a new world record for the number of weather 
disasters this year that could cost $1 billion or more. We have had 23 
so far. I am going to refer again to what I had in my opening remarks. 
This is Tyndall Air Force Base. We flew planes out of there because we 
knew it was coming, but we weren't able to protect the infrastructure. 
We are spending billions and billions and billions of dollars.
  The other thing I mentioned was what happened in Guam with the recent 
storms there. The Air Force alone in Guam is saying $40 billion. We 
have to wake up here. We have to wake up and do what we can to mitigate 
these costs.
  The Department of Defense is the largest and most wide-reaching 
government agency. It can make a huge difference by climate-friendly 
changes in the way that they operate. I am proud of the fact that we 
have worked on them in the Defense bill.
  This amendment is needless, and it makes it difficult for the 
Department of Defense to achieve its climate goals. It jeopardizes our 
military readiness when we have bases like the one I just showed on 
Tyndall and what has happened in Guam.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, testified 
that climate change is a serious threat that is facing our country and 
one that the military must take into account. He went on to say that 
climate change has a significant effect on military operations: 
``Climate change is going to impact natural resources. It is going to 
impact the increased instability in various parts of the world, and it 
is going to impact migrations.''

  Yes, it is a problem not only here at home on our bases with 
resilience, but it is a problem with people fleeing climate change and 
what has happened in their lives and in their countries.
  Each of these situations increases the instability in different 
regions, which could trigger more hostilities that we have to respond 
to to protect ourselves. Each of these situations can impact different 
regions in very, very different ways, even in our own hemisphere, so we 
need to ensure that our military is aware of the problems climate 
change can cause, and if they can play a role in either resilience of 
buildings or different energy sources that they use so we are not 
burning as much fossil fuel, I think we should do that.
  Now, obviously, the gentleman disagrees, but I am looking to the 
future. I am not looking to the past. I am looking for a stronger, more 
flexible, more resilient and more economically empowered United States 
because the dollars that we put into much of this climate resilience 
and that is also transferrable into the private sector. The work that 
the Department of Defense is doing to reduce its energy costs, whether 
it is in materials that it is building, whether it is in use with all 
the equipment that our soldiers are having to carry, ways in which we 
can solar power some of the equipment that they use so we are not 
bringing these huge oil trucks in that we all watched every night for 
how many weeks of our soldiers, many of them dying in front of our own 
eyes transporting fuel.
  I think it can be a win-win, and we need to look at it as a win-win. 
We can't always be looking at it as a loss-loss.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I note that recently China's military sent 103 
warplanes toward Taiwan in a 24-hour period in what the island's 
Defense Ministry called a recent new high. Forty of these planes 
crossed the symbolic median line between mainland China and Taiwan.
  There is a lot going on in the world. We are going to have debates 
about Ukraine. I am hopeful we will have a debate about Ukraine rather 
than just tacking on a continuing resolution and jamming it through to 
the American people, but that is a debate for another day.
  The question here is whether or not we are going to have, in the 
gentlewoman's words, a strong military, a resilient military, and a 
strong economy on the back of that or wrapped around that when, in 
fact, what we are doing through the Inflation Reduction Act is spending 
almost a trillion dollars, according to The Wall Street Journal, in 
massive subsidies, 90 percent to billion-dollar corporations, heavily 
to the most elite, rich, frankly, usually White liberals in this 
country, driving around their EV-powered cars. We are subsidizing the 
crud out of that while we are decimating the natural gas strength of 
this country, which puts us in a much stronger position from a national 
security perspective vis-a-vis Russia, vis-a-vis China, rather than 
empowering China by saying, sure, let us please buy all of your solar 
panels and all of your batteries so that we can transfer our military 
to something that isn't even remotely ready to be transferred to.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. 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).

[[Page H4626]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 178 Offered by Mr. Tiffany

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 178 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  Mr. TIFFANY. 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 the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be expended to create, procure, or 
     display any map that depicts Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu, 
     Wuciou, Green Island, or Orchid Island as part of the 
     territory of the People's Republic of China.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit the Department of 
Defense from creating, procuring, or displaying any map which depicts 
Taiwan as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
  This should not be a problem since all of us know that Taiwan is not, 
nor has it ever been, part of Communist China. Any claims to the 
contrary are simply false.
  Since the 1970s, America's so-called One China policy has 
acknowledged Beijing's bogus claims over Taiwan. This is an antiquated 
and dishonest policy, and it is one that we should abandon.
  While my amendment will not end that misguided policy, it will at 
least require that the maps that we use reflect a simple reality: China 
is China; Taiwan is Taiwan.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my honest maps amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
oddly enough, as a social studies teacher who taught some geography. 
The Department of Defense, the administration, and this Congress have 
been pretty clear in its opposition to the unwelcomed Chinese 
assertions of control over Taiwan.
  This amendment will do nothing to prevent the Chinese aggression in 
the Indo-Pacific, but it would prevent the Department of Defense from 
buying or displaying a map on how China views the world. Now, if you 
are going to have a discussion with students about geography and 
China's ambitions, China has maps. China has maps which rewrite 
history.
  Whether they rewrite history including Taiwan, or whether they 
rewrite history as they have done in Tibet or what they are looking at 
doing in other parts of the world with their Belt and Road Initiative, 
they have maps. We can't be blinded or not acknowledge how they view 
the world physically and what the world really is.
  This would force the Department to put its head in the sand or obtain 
intelligence or something on what the Chinese have labeled as theirs.
  Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that it is important to know what 
our allies and adversaries are thinking, and sometimes we have to 
physically look at it.
  Instead, I believe Congress and the Department should focus our time 
and energy on being clear with China about the respect for 
international boundaries and the rule of law. One way you can show that 
is the international boundaries and the rule of law on a map that we 
can all agree on that is correct and showing how China is coming up 
with their own maps, reinterpreting the boundaries themselves.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I am stunned. This is the type of appeasement 
that gets the world in trouble. We have a long history of this, and our 
country is very familiar with it, going back to probably the most 
classic example that is taught in our history books from the 1930s, 
where there isn't this clear demarcation, where you do not have 
definitive language, like President Reagan when he said, ``Mr. 
Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
  There are times when you have to be very clear with your adversaries 
about where you stand. This is one of them in regard to Taiwan because 
Communist China would like to take over that island nation, an island 
nation that they never controlled. It was never under their control.
  We can appease, and we will continue to see dozens, perhaps hundreds, 
of sorties being flown over Taiwan as aggression comes from that 
appeasement.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am certain that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin does not think I appease China. I don't. I do not.
  In fact, China, when we went to visit Taiwan at one point while I was 
on a delegation, they were going to refuse us entry because they see us 
as hostiles.
  China doesn't see me as an appeaser. I want to be really clear. Maybe 
it is not the intention of this gentleman, but I am going to say it 
again: You are in a military college situation. You are talking about 
how China views the world. You put up the real map and somehow or 
another the Department of Defense can't even procure, create, or 
display a map that shows how China sees themselves viewing the world.
  We are in conflict with China right now in the South China Sea. Not 
to show how China sees these islands as theirs when we are sending our 
Navy in there to protect freedom of seas, a map which shows the freedom 
of seas that they are protecting, that just doesn't make any sense to 
me.
  Mr. Chair, I am at a loss for words why we can't show how China views 
the world when we are getting ready to defend our democracy, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I will take the point in good faith from the 
gentlewoman on the other side. If you have a good instructor, they can 
clearly explain how China views the world. If you have a good 
instructor in the Department of Defense, perhaps in the military 
college, they can explain very clearly how China views the world. This 
does not preclude that in any way, but when we make a trip like I did 
recently with the Natural Resources Committee, and we have a map that 
is put before us that shows Taiwan as part of Communist China, that is 
just simply not the truth. That is what we were getting at.
  I think this legislation is going to have strong bipartisan support, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 179 Offered by Mr. Tiffany

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 179 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  Mr. TIFFANY. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to enforce the 
     restrictions outlined under the headings ``Visits and 
     Travel'' (regarding limitations on ``Travel to Taiwan'') and 
     ``Communications'' (regarding limitations on ``Name'', 
     ``Symbols of Sovereignty'', and ``Correspondence'') in the 
     Department of State's June 29, 2021, Memorandum for All 
     Department and Agency Executive Secretaries entitled 
     ``Revised Guidelines on Interacting with Taiwan''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prevent the enforcement of 
several arbitrary State Department restrictions that limit 
communication and cooperation between U.S. officials and their 
counterparts in Taiwan.
  These restrictions, which are imposed at the behest of Communist 
China, are not only counterproductive, but they actually conflict with 
existing U.S. law. They prevent high-ranking officials from traveling 
to Taiwan, which makes it more difficult for us to coordinate with 
military planners in Taipei.

[[Page H4627]]

  They police language, warning American officials not to refer to 
Taiwan as a country or its elected leaders as a government. They even 
impose degrading restrictions that serve no reasonable purpose, such as 
a ban on displaying Taiwan's flag and the playing of Taiwan's national 
anthem at functions held on U.S. Government property. In essence, they 
are designed to prevent and limit high-level interaction between U.S. 
and Taiwanese officials.
  Despite the fact that it has been official U.S. policy since 2018 to 
encourage and facilitate them, Mr. Chair, these rules do not help the 
United States and do not help Taiwan. The only country they help is 
Communist China.
  These Taiwan rules, like so many elements of our failed One China 
policy, simply perpetuate Beijing's lies and reward their bad behavior. 
America does not need a permission slip from Communist China to talk to 
our friends and allies, and that policy should end today.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the executive branch has the ability to 
determine how the United States engages and manages our relationship 
with Taiwan, just as, at times, this Congress has decided when and 
where to travel. It is because Congress has left it to the executive 
branch, however, to conduct the diplomacy and the recognition or 
nonrecognition of foreign states and governments in this case.
  Now, I believe, Mr. Chair, if we want to legislate on how the 
executive branch should engage with Taiwan, then what we should do is 
mark it up in a separate bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee that 
deals just with that, either have the authorization handle it or if we 
are going to have the Foreign Affairs appropriations bill on the floor 
at some point, I hope.
  In the absence of that, the executive branch needs to determine how 
to handle diplomatic engagements abroad. It is their job to weigh 
multiple equities and balance delicate factors that are simply not 
considered by this amendment today.
  The gentleman knows and understands that Taiwan is a sensitive 
geopolitical subject with respect to our relations with the People's 
Republic of China, and I appreciate that. However, Mr. Chair, we have a 
select committee in this House, and I think it is something that we 
should allow them, in a bipartisan fashion, to examine.
  There is just too much at stake, in my opinion, to have this 
amendment decide what guidelines of engagement will be here today on 
the House floor.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, America has always done best in regard to 
foreign policy when we are strong and resolute. This is anything but 
strong and resolute.
  Let me read to you from an unclassified document from the State 
Department: You should not refer to Taiwan as a country or to the 
authorities on Taiwan as a government. Instead, refer to Taiwan 
authorities or Taiwan counterparts. Please avoid the public display or 
use of any ROC symbols of sovereignty. Taiwan authorities should not 
wear their uniforms on U.S. Government premises unless necessary for 
safety reasons.
  In other words, in effect, you are almost saying to them we need you 
to grovel. You are second-class citizens when you are interacting with 
the United States of America.
  We should never treat a friend like that, in particular a friend like 
Taiwan where you see the Communist Chinese Government is working day 
after day and have been successful in some places, like the Solomon 
Islands in Central America, where they have undermined support for 
Taiwan.
  We should be standing resolutely with Taiwan and send a very clear 
message. When we send a clear message to Communist China, it is 
important for them to hear that, but our partners, our allies around 
the world, also see that clear message and are more likely to be 
resolute, also.

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense appropriation 
bill, we are sending a message, a clear message, and I support that 
message. What the gentleman from Wisconsin is talking about, Mr. Chair, 
is the Department of State, and that is not germane to this bill.
  There are bills on the floor where it will be germane, and that is my 
biggest concern with this amendment. I don't want to be a party to not 
respecting the chairs of the authorizing committees or the chairs and 
ranking members of the Appropriations Committee that oversees that 
funding.
  That is not what this bill is about today. For that reason alone, to 
respect the different roles that we have in this body, this amendment, 
although well-intentioned by my colleague from Wisconsin, is not 
germane to this bill. We should not overstep our jurisdiction. We 
should stay with what we are doing with China and Taiwan in the Defense 
bill, which the chair has marked out clearly.
  I support that, but I do not support starting to dictate what the 
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee for State-
Foreign Ops should be doing.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, if there is a point of order that is being 
raised here, my amendment does not change any existing law or require 
any new duty or determination on the part of any employee of the 
Department of Homeland Security. It simply prohibits the expenditure of 
funds in contravention of a longstanding existing law, which the 
Department ought to comply with already.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 180 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 180 
printed in part A of House Report 118-216.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 723, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 180 would prohibit the use 
of funds being made available by this act from enforcing any COVID-19 
mask mandates.
  Now, I want to make sure that everyone understands there is a huge 
difference between a COVID-19 mask mandate and having a section of a 
medical facility that is quarantined off because of highly contagious 
diseases or folks that are immune deficient. That has nothing to do 
with the COVID-19 mandate. This is only about COVID-19 mandates.
  Last month, Morris Brown College in Atlanta reinstated its COVID-19 
mask mandate. They eventually rescinded the mandate, in large part due 
to public outcry, but make no mistake, tyrants will go out of their way 
to control our lives if we allow them to.
  The simple fact is that masks don't work. A recent study confirmed 
this fact, stating: ``Wearing masks in the community probably makes 
little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness/COVID-
19-like illness compared to not wearing masks.''
  This was obvious to anyone with common sense, but our experts lied to 
us for the past 3 years about everything.
  There are also negative consequences and potential safety concerns 
for children being forced to wear a mask. There are almost 70,000 
children that attend Department of Defense Education Activity schools. 
We have seen the negative consequences of children masking, and 
children of our servicemembers who are risking their lives

[[Page H4628]]

overseas should not be subject to this cruel treatment.
  Nobody should be turned away for refusing to wear a mask, but the 
real purpose of the mask mandate is for unelected bureaucrats to 
control our behavior, which is unacceptable and something that I will 
not tolerate.
  Moreover, a potential mask mandate based on vaccination status would 
create a division among servicemembers. There has been a lot of 
discussion on enacting police policies that create cohesion among 
members of the Armed Forces and stigmatizing some servicemembers by 
forcing them to wear masks that would create a group of second-class 
citizens. This would, ultimately, create division among enlisted 
members.
  The American people are sick of COVID-19 hysteria by unelected 
bureaucrats and will not comply with any more unscientific edicts.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I appreciate what the gentleman from Montana 
said about protecting medical facilities, but I am going to read the 
amendment: ``At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
following: Section,'' and the section will be numbered, ``None of the 
funds made available by this act may be used to enforce any COVID-19 
mask mandate.'' It says ``any.''
  So, at a DOD facility or at a hospital or something like that, they 
would not be able to enforce a mask mandate if they felt one was 
necessary in a certain section of a hospital or clinic.
  To the amendment in general, if this was enacted, the Department, as 
I pointed out, would be limited in what they could do, but they 
couldn't even purchase any masks in case of a COVID surge. The CDC and 
the World Health Organization have recommended using a mask as a tool 
to protect people, especially the vulnerable, in cases of a COVID-19 
surge.
  Here is why an option is necessary in the military, and I mentioned 
this earlier, Mr. Chair. I, once again, ask you and my colleagues to 
consider life in a submarine--the close quarters, the lack of privacy. 
Think what would happen if there is a COVID outbreak in a submarine. It 
would have the potential of impacting the ability of that submarine to 
stay on station or deploy, putting our national security at risk.
  If enacted, this amendment would take away a safety tool for the 
commander, a tool that they have in their toolbox.
  One person tests positive for COVID on a submarine. They are all 
breathing the same air. They are in tight quarters. They are all going 
to have to put a mask on so they can complete their mission.
  Our commanders deserve our trust. They deserve our respect that they 
are going to act in the best interest of their crew so they can execute 
their mission.
  I don't want to take any tools away from people in that circumstance, 
and this amendment would do exactly that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I am glad that the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota brought up the bill, the actual bill. ``None of the funds 
made available by this act may be used to enforce any COVID-19 mask 
mandates.''
  Again, let me reiterate: Highly contagious diseases or folks that are 
immune deficient have nothing to do with the COVID-19 mandate.
  Here is the other thing. If someone is concerned or chooses to virtue 
signal by wearing a mask, they are free to do so. They are absolutely 
free to do so. If they have an immune deficiency and want to wear a 
mask, they are free to do so, but do not impose the mandates on us 
freedom-loving individuals who don't want to walk around covering our 
faces up just to let someone else feel a little better about things.
  We have problems right now with recruitment. The numbers are down as 
much as 35 percent. We are missing goals dramatically. Approving 
arbitrary mandates that don't help the military mission to be the most 
effective fighting force on Earth is not the way that we are going to 
get those numbers up.
  Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. It is going to help us with 
recruiting efforts. It is going to help us make sure that our team 
works together better, and I ask everyone in here to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tiffany) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duarte, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4365) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________