the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35, printed in part c of house report number 117-125. offered by miss mrs. maloney of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, and the member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of this amendment which contains my bill to increase transparency and accountability of senior leaders in the executive branch called the periodically listing updates to management act, or plum act. this bill would require the office of personnel management to maintain a current publicly available online directory of senior government leaders. currently a comprehensive list of people appointed by the president is available only once every four years. and a publication referred to as the plum book. the plum book provides only a snapshot in time and does not reflect changes that occur between publications. as a result, current information about senior administration officials is often diet dated and difficult to -- is often outdated and difficult to find. in the digital age providing americans with a list of top federal officials once every four years is simply unacceptable. this bill would implement recommendations made by the government accountability office and the administrative conference of the united states, by nodernizing and expanding the current publication of the plum book and aligning it were nodern data -- nodern data standards. the committee on oversight and reform considered this bill in june of this year and approved on a voice vote. the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee approved a similar bill last congress with broad bipartisan support. and the plum act has been strongly endorsed by a bipartisan group of more than two dozen civil society organizations and experts. i want to thank my co-sponsors on the bill, representative connolly, sarbanes, norton, and castro. i also want to thank my colleague, representative ocasio-cortez for introducing the political appointments inclusion and diversity act. which requires o.p.m. to coordinate with the white house to make a summary of demographic information on political appointees publicly available. the requirements in her bill are included in the plum act. we should be working together and working toward making our government more transparent for the miles per hour people -- for the american people and more representative of everyone in our country. the plum act would provide timely and transparent information about senior government officials who are making decisions impacting the lives of millions. it would shine a light on who is at the table in our government and who is not. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to amendment 35. i yield myself such time as he may consume. the amendment would establish an online public directory of political appointees at the office of personnel management. i want to thank ranking member rogers for his extraordinary leadership throughout this process. i want to echo his words from his opening testimony on monday before the house rules committee where he urged the committee to quote, keep out superfluous amendments not related to the department of defense. unfortunately, this advice fell upon deaf ears with regards to particular amendment. this politically charged amendment is wholly outside the jurisdiction. it does not belong in the ndaa. this lies solely within the jurisdiction of the house oversight and reform committee and the reasoning as to why we are debating this as a measure in the ndaa is absolutely beyond me mr. fallon: the plum book is available online and as of 2012 has been published in a more searchable and accessible format. given that plum book is already accessible online in two separate locations, there is no justification whatsoever for the measure's authorization for $7 million in appropriated taxpayer money. to build this new online database. this amendment goes beyond the original intent of the plum book by creating a continual usely updated website listing thousands of political appointees and senior government officials which may dissuade good people from serving in future presidential administrations and risk abuse by enabling political targeting. a tool that is updated monthly is not a transitional resource between administrations, but rather a database that can be readily exploited by political activist to track down and target politically appointed leaders. political appointees are already accountable to the duly elected president whom they astroturf and the president is accountable to the american people every four years. and to congress each day of his or her term. even more concerning is requiring the o.p.m. director to publish a report containing information on any appointees' demographics, including self-identity data on race, ethnicity, tribal affiliation, gender disability, sexual orientation, veteran stay turks and whether the appointee is over the age of 40. although the bill language claims to make it anonymous, this information, will be anonymous, the mere fact that o.p.m. would be in possession of this personal information that's utterly unrelated and immaterial to the position to which the person is being appointed could have a chilling effect on future political appointees. additionally, there appear to be no safeguards in this amendment protecting this personal information from subsidies closure whether through a foia request or a cyber breach. we have already seen during this congress the multiple cyber breaches at various federal agencies. if we can't secure the information collected by the federal government, then the government shouldn't be in possession of that information to begin with. this provision in and of itself is egregious. transparency and accountability are essential to our constitutional government. but this amendment neglects the necessary safeguards to protect federal employees. so, madam speaker, i ask my colleagues, what protections are in the plum act to ensure the database cannot be abused by activist to target public individuals. what protects officials serving in sensitive national security positions? why is it truly necessary given the political appointees are accountable to the public through the service under an elected president? don't you agree that this sensitive private information this amendment seeks is not appropriate for the government to be collecting from our civil servants. shouldn't we, instead, be concerned about the fekdiveness of our government leadership? this amendment is a slippery slope to requiring, collecting, and publishing the same information about our broader federal work force. until these questions can be answered with sound policy and our federal agencies can guarantee the cybersecurity and other security of this information, i urge my colleagues to oppose this nongermane amendment. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for recognizing me. i would like to say that i disagree with you strongly. we need to move into the nodern age. right now all information is on the internet, it's dij -- digital and available. the bill would merely require the office of personnel to maintain a current publicly available online directory of senior government officials so that anyone could access it at any time. a comprehensive list of -- is already out there, as you said, but it is printed only once every four years. in a book that's called the plum book. it is only a snapshot. it's not up to date. this bill is about nodernizing the plum book. and aligning it to nodern data standards. that's what this is about. information on senior leaders in government may already be obtained by outside groups through foia, freedom of information request, or paid subscription services. there are paid subscription services and you can get it through a freedom of information. so it's available. o.p.m., civil service regulations stimulate that certain information from personnel records for current and former federal employees is available to the public, including names, present and past position titles, salaries, position descriptions, and duty stations. federal employees generally have no expectation of privacy regarding this information. it's available on all of us. it's available by private means. it's available through other means. through the foia. why not make it available and easily used by the public? i want to answer the gentleman's claim that identifying appointees publicly puts them at risk of political demonstrations or may make them not want to serve. or whatever. he mentioned that this was a negative. information such as names of current -- my time is running out. but right now there is an exception for national security positions. that is recognized. and reporting on demographic information is important to get to the public. i strongly support this bill. my time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. fallon: thank you, madam speaker. in closing i'd just urge opposition to this nongermane intrusive and overreaching amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. the question is on the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. fallon: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in part c of house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36, printed in part c of house report number 117-125. offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: i thank the speaker. i rise in support of my bipartisan amendment to end the defense department's militarization of police departments across the nation. i think we can all agree that community confidence in law enforcement is at an all time low. and a heunl factor in this lo -- huge factor in this loss of confidence is the militarization of our police departments across the nation. this trend has been exacerbated by the 1033 program that creates a pipeline to transfer surplus military weapons from war zones directly to domestic law enforcement agencies. these law enforcement agencies without consent of the civilian authorities obtain military-grade weaponry directly from the war zones of iraq and afghanistan. and it is the civilian authorities who should decide whether such equipment is needed, not the law enforcement agencies themselves. the approval of city councils, county commissions, and other civilian authorities is bypassed under the 1033 program. this amendment would fix that. it would stop law enforcement agencies from acquiring military grade weaponry without the consent of the governed and when they oftentimes have no need for these weapons of war. nor are they trained as to how and when to use the equipment. but a requirement under the 1033 program mandates that the acquired equipment be placed into use within 12 months of acquisition. this mandate has resulted in the misuse of the equipment and abuse of civilians against whom it was used. the result has been communities alienated and a loss of confidence in law enforcement. momentum is building towards reform of the 1033 program. american communities are not and should not be turned into battlefield. people in those communities should not be looked at as enemy combatants. the ending of the war in afghanistan makes it even more posh than -- important than ever we close down this pipeline of military grade weapons from foreign war zones to the streets of our nation. over 17,000 pieces of military equipment have been declared excess or surplus and sent to the defense logistics agency for distribution on to our streets. the time is now to act and vote yes on my amendment. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. flop gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to yield myself 30 seconds. the gentlemanis recognized for 30 seconds. >> i support our law enforcement community and those in smaller and rural communities like those at in my district. they benefit the most from the 103 # program. limiting equipment transfers wore significantly impede their ability to do their jobs and keep us safe. we need to make their missions not more difficult. i urge a no vote and i would like to reserve the ball ands of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: small law enforcement agency being able to order massive amounts of military equipment directly from the battlefields of this country and to do it without consent of the tkpwofrped is wrong and that's what this amendment will get at and with that, i reserve the balance of the. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: -- mrs.rodgers: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from florida, from franklin, a great member of the armed services key. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for a minute and a half. >> i thank the gentleman to speak on section 1033. my democrat colleagues argue that the 10233 program to militarize our police. they claim the program transfers weapons of war to the police and continue to perpetrate this narrative to advance their dangerous crews aid against law enforcement. i have spoken with law enforcement. the 10 # # program helped them get heavy rescue vehicles. and a constituent infiltrated a police line and had a stockpile of weapons including a k-frp-47's and tired 93 under rounds at deputies. a polk county e.m.t. was shot and injured. this surplus vehicle akaoeurd through the 1033 program, more deputies might have been killed. this provides the needed with equipment with little or no cost. it is important to stepped the life of equipment. it would be wasteful to discard this gear. many of the types of vehicles are used during hurricane and 10 # # program provides tents, generators and that are used. i am a military veteran and familiar with weapons of war. i have never seen tents, generators referred to as weapons of war. they acquire equipment that protects our officers and serves our communities. this is to defund and the men and women who protect us. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama reserves. mr. johnson: this amendment restores civilian authority over law enforcement. a small law enforcement agency doesn't need a military grade tank to rescue stranded individuals that may be due to a hurricane or something like that, some kind of a natural disaster. you don't need a military tank and no law enforcement officer should order that directly without the consent of the governed and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mrs.rodgers: i yield 90 seconds to my good friend from florida, mr. rutherford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rutherford: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would unnecessarily restrict the department of defense from transferring surplus equipment to local law enforcement agencies. we remember the tragic pulse nightclub shooting in my home state. during the response, law enforcement officers set off a controlled explosion to distract the shooter and to breach the walls of the nightclub. one of the environs try officers was shot in the head but his life was saved by his anti-ballistic helmet. if the gentleman across the aisle might have been an officer he might have a different opinion. under this amendment, those officers would not have had the explosives and armored vehicle or the anti-politic helmet to save their lives. this program works to get our law enforcement officers what they need to protect themselves and protect our community. i promised our community that our law enforcement officers would be well equipped and properly deployed and skillfully managed. the 1033 program helps achieve that goal with significant reductions of costs to hardworking taxpayers. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from paepl reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: a large metro law enforcement agency with the consent of the governed has the ability to purchase whatever equipment they need, but the bottom line is the civilian authorities get to decide and the taxpayers pay for it, but this should not be a supply line directly from the battlefield to a local law enforcement agency without consent of the governed and with the governed having to bear the costs of unnecessary equipment as well as itsmis use that contributes to the decline in law enforcement. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mrs.rodgers: i would like to yield 1.30 to mr. kneels of texas -- tph*els. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. if passessed this would restrict law enforcement agencies throughout the country from obtaining life-saving like the o.h. helicopter. when i was a sheriff in texas, if i have to comply with this amendment, it would have limited my ability to save lives. the 1033 program allowed me to obtain to surplus oh-50 helicopters saving taxpayers helicopters, they were free. additionally, it provided replacement parts. after taking possession, we equipped them with equipment and painted them with our department colors so everyone could see who was flying the helicopter. the idea of saying we are doing this, this is me. and six weeks later, this is what they looked like. does that look like a military helicopter? absolutely not. that argument holds no water. county and city councils must approve that equipment. it is not a rogue police chief. on several occasions my department responded to silver alerts where seniors were missing and we deployed our helicopters to search for them and we were successful and sadly we were too late. during hurricane we used humvees to rescue families. the typical law enforcement vehicle doesn't have the ability to forge through high water and i have the pictures. if the amendment is passed you will prevent law enforcement agencies from it works and i we have to reject this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama time has expired completely. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: a pig with lipstick is still a pig and military-grade helicopter secured from the battlefields from afghanistan is a military-grade helicopter being used against its citizens. if the jurisdiction, the city council or county commission agreed to purchase and voted on that and agreed to accept the material, then that is good, but that is not required under the 1033 program, which allows law enforcement agencies to pegs directly to the department of defense and get this equipment like those helicopters without the consent of the governed and that's wrong. over the last several decades the 1033 program has transferred 7.4 billion in surplus akwaeuplt to federal, tribal and state and local agencies across the county. when i interviewed this language in 2014, i heard every excuse about why we should not do something about this program. we need to begin the process of restoring confidence in law enforcement, and with that, i would yield become. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is offered on the amendment by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye those opposed, no the ayes have it. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it mrs.rodgers: i request a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in part c of house report 1117-125. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report c of 117-125 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanfrom california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr.garamendi: the united states, russia and china are engaged in a new nuclear arms race. the rapid development by all three nations of new bombs, new stealth delivery systems and reliance on space for observation and communications makes this new nuclear arms race more dangerous. therefore, in an effort to slow the pace and create times for tkpoeurbgss to move forward, i rise to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2022 national defense authorization act that pauses the development and prohibits the funding for the ground-based strategic tkerpbt program and the associated w-87-1 warhead for the fiscal year 2022. this amendment extends the service life of the minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile. the current missile is slated to replace until at least 2040. my amendment requires the use of nondestructive methods and technologies. the trident 2d-5 ballistic missiles. there has been much debate. i argued nor a longer pause for the gsbd program to defer the cost of $240 billion that will occur in the next 20 years. were it not only this but the remaining nuclear enterprise and the initiatives to slow the pace of the john going arms race with russia and china. however, this amendment does not seek to permanently resolve the question of the land-based ballistic missile systems. while that debate is of utmost importance, by debate seeks a one-year because. why? a short pause is practical and prudent given the biden stpraeugs is under taking a new cost of review which is expected to be completed in the earlier calendar year of 2022. it will accomplish the nuclear arsenal. therefore, can occur after that time period. now before we spend billions of dollars in fiscal year 2022 on the w-87 warhead and $276 billion when accounting on a cost on a nuclear system that is not yet needed, we should wait until the president completes the n.p.r. so we have a complete picture. this awes, this pause will have no impact on our deterrents capability now or in the near future. we need the icbm's can be expanded until 2040. we know that because that what is the air force tends to do with more than half of that arsenal. the u.s., russian and china as they rush to this the trip wire is becoming more taunt. obvious and communication satellites and systems are vulnerable to attacks. all three countries are fielding systems designed to evade detection. the risk of false alarm or politicalmis calculation has always, always haunted the nuclear landscape and they do even more today. . with that, i hold my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my good friend, mr. garamendi, for bringing this forward. i do mean that thank you sib sincerely because he gives us an opportunity to highlight that this provision he seeks to undo has strong, bipartisan support. representative garamendi,all though being my good friend, is in the minority of the minority. he gives us an opportunity to highlight that his amendment would remove funding that is requested by president joe biden. it is of a program initiated by the obama administration. these plans have been validated by three presidential administrations, democrat and republican, six congress, six secretaries of defense, a bipartisan majority in congress have voted repeatedly in support of this program. the same holds true of the warhead which will eventually go on top of the missile. both democrat and republican presidents support this system as it will replace the oldest warhead in the u.s. arsenal. this will increase safety and security. we have been told to try to extend, if it could, the minman 3, it would take $38 billion more, we would have less capability and earlier this year we had a failure of the minuteman 3icbu test. this is about the safety and security of our nuclear deterrent and our nation. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: oh, my good friend from ohio, how often have i heard you say that president biden has been wrong so many times over the last six months. and indeed, he's wrong in this respect also. so let's agree on that. the fact of the matter is that the extension of the minuteman 3 for the next 15 to 20 years is not more expensive than the gbsd. in fact the gbsd cost estimates compared to the minuteman 3 is based on a 50-year period of time until 2085. oh my goodness, when did we last take up that period of time in any of our cost call cue laigs here? we don't. it's simply a false way of addressing the cost differential. it is in fact cheaper in the next 15 to 20 years to do a life cycle extension when necessary on the minuteman 3 missiles. and it is entirely feez to believe do so as sent by the military themselves. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner is recognized. mr. turner: i yield one minute to representative bacon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. bacon: i stand in strong opposition to this amendment and the extreme damage it would do to our national security. this amendment is misguided based on rapid changes in the global threat environment. it's established that russia modernized their entire nuclear arsenal. meanwhile we're still debating it. more worrying, we learned that china has started on a crash knew clary program. open source reporting has confirmed three new chinese icbm fields with over 100 silos each. when armed these silos along with their road mobile icbm's will match our icbm inventory and they'll be new. china is on pace to quadruple its nuclear stockpile as it tries to achieve parity with the united states and russia. for the first time in history, the united states confronts not one, but two nuclear-peer armed competitors. our friends and allies are watching this vote. further delaying modernizing our land-based throafg triad while china and russia modernizes theirs would have the disastrous effect of having allies develop their own nuclear programs or submit to coercion from china and russia. i ask you to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: there is no remaining time for the gentleman from california. mr. turner: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. turner: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you for the d bait, thank you to my friend from california as well, we debate this often. we have made our point, we have done this in committee for several months. i want to highlight a couple of things here of what i believe is misinformation about this program, specifically related to cost and effectiveness of current minuteman iii. -- minuteman 3. the sponsors will say the department has concluded minuteman 3 extension will cost less than gbsds of. the office of the secretary of defense and air force have come to a different conclusion. mr. moore: i recall conversations with secretary ross about if we can't to try to fix our old carburetor or my old furnace it's not more effective for what the long-term gain is. the democratic sponsors will claim the air force has stated they can extend the minuteman 3. admiral richard told us life extension is not possible. we don't have the parts. we have engineers looking on ebay trying to get actual parts for this. this is not possible, it is time to modernize. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i yield one minute to representative jackson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. wrks: thank you to the member from ohio, thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this amendment as it cuts funding for the w87-1 warhead which will be assembled at the plant in amarillo, texas. this has been requested by president biden. cutting fundings for the w-87-1 would be irresponsible and unsafe as it's slated to replace the oldest weapon in the stockpile. this program was started by obama, conned by trump and is now being funded by biden. it's been a great success and has hit all its markers and is on track to deliver the first unit in 2030. further, plutonium pits for the w87-1 will eventually be produce at the los alamos lab giving us production capability we currently don't have. for these reasons and others mentioned by my colleagues i urge everyone to oppose this far left attempt to disarm the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: representative garamendi is correct. russia and china are in an arms race. we are not merely modernizing our forces. it is sad we are here trying to defend against an amendment that will weaken our defense just as yesterday the majority cut $1 billion from the defense of israel and its iron dome which will only make it more likely that this conflict, cutting our nuclear deterrent also increases the likelihood that there would be conflict. this is about making certain our country remains safe. this is about our national security. every should vote no on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 66 #, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye -- the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the upon the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider the amendment 39 printed in part c of house releulingsz -- house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39, printed in part c of house report 117-125, offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate it. i rise today to offer an amendment to this year's national defense authorization act to help reign in -- rein in practices that existed since the 19 90's known as the unfunded priorities list or unfunded requirement list. the practice had good intent, to allow flexible for the armed services for issues that came up outside of the normal appropriations process. but it has grown and become embedded to encompass larger areas of the pentagon budget that were never considered to be part of that mandate at the time. mr. speaker, we're getting out of afghanistan. we have decided that we're not going to be pursuing every war overseas. trying to protect american service men and women. our budget should reflect that. we've tried to be honest in our budgets this year. the overseas contingency budget has been eliminated. let's be honest in our budget requests. we go through an extensive process, both in the authorizing committee, the armed services, and in our appropriations committee to make sure that the budget requests are reasonable, reflect the interests of the american people, and the congressional districts that we represent. let's be honest here. the budget has changed. it is time to rein in some spending. the defense department itself has showcased $125 billion in waste and inefficiencies within its own budget. it is time to rein that in. the unfunded requirement list, the unfinded -- unfeunded priorities list is part of that my amendment doesn't eliminate it. it just restricts its use back to the services and socomm like it was intended. still gives the pentagon the ability to showcase additional needs not included in the main budget request but eliminates the budgetary creep we have seen over the past several years. this issue crosses party line, mr. speaker. former senate armed services committee chairman john mccain said, i am not really big on unfunded priority lists. i think they're sort of a back door way of getting things down. we've seen what happens when the pentagon stops this practice from -- practice from happening with robert gates as secretary, we cut down oh on the use of u.p.l.'s drastically in his tenure and the d.o.d. budget continued to operate just fine. with that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. rogest: i -- mr. rogers: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and yield myself sup time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. rogers: i want people to understand what the gentleman is proposing, it is nigh yves and reckless. when we get the budget proposal from the administration, it's just that, it's a proposal. and it's not coming directly from the combatant commanders who are the individuals charged with executing the u.s. missions around the world. this amendment would prohibit them getting us the items that were not funded by the president's budget proposal and keep in mind, both this president and the last president have given us budget proposals that were grossly inadequate. we were able to remedy it under the last president. we were able to remedy it in this one with this president. and we depend heavily on what the combatant commanders tell us they need. it is critical that congress know what the commanders need to keep our service members safe and ensure the success of their missions. here's an example. in the f.y.2022 priority, the sent come commander sent a $106 million request to maintain the patriot batteries in iraq to keep our troops safe from missiles fired from iran and proxies in syria. that money was not in the biden budget. we found out about it and funded it because that critical need was -- and is now in the bill because general mckenzie told us about it in his unfunded requirement list we wouldn't have known about that otherwise. that's just one example of why this amendment is misguided. i urge all members to oppose it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. i think the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle is confused. we're not talking about restricting the appropriations process or the armed services committee from making decisions and priorities based on what is submitted by defense department agencies as well as congressional districts themselves this merely says if we abide by some of the -- we should abide by the decisions made by the appropriations committee as the good gentleman points out, actually abide by the decisions made by the appropriators based on their input, the intel that was just described. we're talking about the unfunded priorities list which is basically a slush fund for mission creep that we no longer need. we have to respect the twhoifl people, the congressional districts that we represent and should abide by their wishes and our >> i'm notmis guided or don'tmis understand anything. and it is a vital piece of information that our key to do its oversight and i urge the members of this body to reject this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from oregon is recognized. >> some people believe what you send on the pentagon, you should spend more and trying to push us down that road to spend more, which is wrong and it is bad for national security. we need to make choices and not imagine that the budget is unlimited. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i urge all members of this body to reject it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr.schrader: if the priorities did not make it into the largest piece of the discretionary budget we vote on, how big a priority can it be. let's restrict, not eliminate pursuant to house resolution 667, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye those in favor say aye those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i request the yeas and nays pursuant to section #-s, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to house resolution 8 rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in part c of house report 1117-125, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i rise to offer amendment 40 as designee of member congress member pocan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlewoman will continue. sorry. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40, printed in part c of house report 117-125 offered by ms. ocasio-cortez of new york pursuant to house resolution 667 the gentlewoman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. ocasio-cortez: i offer amendment 40 to reduce the pentagon by 40%. when covid-19 and fallout is one of the greatest threats we face when record levels of unemployment, housing and health care crises are among us, the united states should be reducing its spending by 5% and prioritize the very needs of our communities at home. today, we can cut the defense authorize ace by 10% without any need to deny our servicemembers or families. we can free up to $77 billion to go towards fighting the covid-19 pandemic and much more. mr. speaker, i urge support of this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves the balance of her time, for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized >> this amendment would strip $79 billion out of the bill. that would have catastropheic effects. we have been at war for two decades and orpb out everything we've got. we have to start replacing and modernizing to take on the threat from china. this will set us back on cleanup and remediation and other contaminated items and schools and child care facility and the list goes on. i urge all members to oppose this amendment and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: skrafpl alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. ocasio-cortez: this could hurt our readiness? it is not the readiness but profit margins every major defense contractor has had to pay fines or setment tore fraud ormis conduct while getting $1 trillion in public funding. in defense contracts. i have seen this personally on my work on the oversight key and confronted them draining our resources. the $77 billion is not that hard to find. the pentagon could save $58 billion by eliminating obsolete weapons, like cold-war-era bombers and missiles that are completely unsuitable. we could find $18 billion by preventing the end of year spending fees that leads contract money being shoveled out the door. the congressional research service has documented these spikes and set your watch to it. each september as offices at the pentagon go on a last minute spending sprees, we have increased our spending year after year and during a time when we have ended two-decade war there is no reason for us to be increasing our military spending and defense budget. we are not funding child care, health care, housing priorities and environmental crisis here at home. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from alabama. >> we are investing in those items and we are divesting of those $78 billion out of legacy platforms that will not be used in the future and applying that money towards those future platforms. i yield a minute and a and-a-half mr. mr. kay jar lee of tennessee. >> i rise in strong opposition to the pocan amendment, a 10% will lead vulnerable. the united states is facing daily threats from china, iran and we must fully fund our military so the u.s. has every capability necessary to deter those who wish to do us arm. the fiscal year 2022 has bipartisan support from the house armed services key already. with the approved budget on the floor being $23.9 billion more than than the bare-bones budget. it was approved in a vote by 57-2 margin. our military leaders have spent the past year sounding the alarm before congress that our top competitors are closing the gap between themselves and the u.s. and in other areas like hyper sonic capabilities. this budget is necessary in order to maintain advantages over our enemies as technology changes rapidly. now is not the time to cut what we must spend to provide for our men and women in uniform. we must ensure that our men and women have every resource to keep the american people safe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. ocasio-cortez: the pentagon is the only federal department that has never passed an audit despite this requirement being on the books for over 30 years. there are folks who are support of the current levels, the increase of skyrocketing spending. and i don't think a sing 8 american or member of my district that can say our child care needs are being met and health care needs are being met that our climate action that is necessary is necessary being met. our needs are not being met. and despite all of this rhetoric about the deficit and all this fear about government spending, for some reason, our defense budget is exempt from this conversation and we ask americans and people in this country year after year to engage in the magical thinking that defense spending comes at no real cost, it does. it comes at the cost of our security. because when question do not have to go to school or go to work and count on child care for our children, it makes us less safe and not able to go to an emergency room or have our health care covered, we are less safe. the erosion of our social systems here domestically is a threat as well and that is happening because of our explosion in defense spending, the explosion in defense spending is coming at the cost of our domestic spending here. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> achieving or meeting the objectives that the gentlelady are not mutually exclusive. we should do both. and $3.5 trillion doesn't spend a dime on defense. and we are in the process, the defense department has never passed an audit. we have had many agencies to task and this time, i would like to yield to the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher, a minute and a half. mr. gallego: i rise in -- professor gerhardt: the former -- >> the chinese communist party can make a move within the next six years. we could be facing a crises unlike anything we have seen. this assessment was incurred by the chief of naval operations and the idea across the board 10% cut to the pentagon at a time when we are facing a serious national crisis makes no sense. the ranking member pointed out the irony and tragedy that they are going to spend $3.5 trillion and tell us we have an explosion in defense spending when it is a percentage. does anyone believe that releasing a press release we somehow ended a war? does someone believe the struggle is over because we have surrendered in that struggle? absolutely not. the irony that defense spending and compare the obama cut to the reagan-defense buildup not pause of missiles but increasing and it is health care. so it is a matter what you are arguing is not true. and as for spending too much money on defense. when you stumble into war on someone else's terms and the best way to project weakness. we can achieve peace only through strength. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from alabama reserves. ms. ocasio-cortez: what we have experienced and seen in our last seen two-decade war is exemplary of the types of waste that goes on. we have seen a lack of oversight and run-away contractor spending with little oversight in what is on going and caught surprised on the end that all of this investment seems to not have panned out in the way or invested in the way that the american public was led to believe all along. not only are these tremendous costs we laid out earlier but also this explosion in spending leads our public funding and militarizes every problem in our society and turns peace profl testers into targets of weapons of war. i urge support for this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment guts our bill which is, i'm certain, the gentlelady's intention. it is recklessly irresponsible. it would harm our service members and their families. i strongly urge all members to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in part c of house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to offer amendment 41 as the designee to have ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in part c of house report 117-125, offered by ms. jacobs of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentlewoman from california, ms. jacobs, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. ms. jacobs: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: this amendment offered by my friend and colleague congresswoman barbara lee restores the ndaa to the original funding level requested by the white house, the pentagon and the chair of the armed services committee. specifically it would remove the rogers amendment which increased the authorization by $23.9 billion. when mr. rogers' amendment was offered during committee markup i voted against it and nothing over the last few weeks has led me to change my mind. mr. speaker, just three weeks ago we ended our military operations in afghanistan, america's longest war, and one that started when i was in middle school. and yet what some are concluding from that is that what we need is more war. more weapons. and billions of dollars more than even what the pentagon themselves are asking for. so many of my colleagues who support police department rogers' amendment note the emerging threat from china as their reason to support the increase. even though very lit thofl increase is even relevant to china and most national security experts agree that making needed domestic investments is far more important to our competitiveness with china. instead this inflated budget seeks to sugar coat that for years we have been decreasing allocations for diplomacy and investing in new and unneeded weapons. we need to focus on what is achievable, what the real threats are, and what we actually need for national security. for the last 20 years we have been told we need more. i think it's time to recognize that there are simply not military solutions turnover problem. i think congresswoman -- i thank congresswoman lee for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote yes with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. ronellers: rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognize. mr. rogers: i yield myself two minutes. mr. speaker, here we go again. this time they're stripping $25 billion in funding added by republicans and democrats on the committee. the gentlelady argues that the biden budget is sufficient for our national defense. i strongly disagree. the biden budget constitutes a cut of about $4 billion in real spending from last year. the budget cuts the number of navy ship, cuts the number of navy ships and destabilizes the industrial basement slashes procurement across the board. it guts missile defense. it leaves unfunded $25 billion in combatant commander priorities. and it cuts the army, navy, air force and marines. at least they left the space force alone. it does all this while our adversaries, pecialsly china, are investing in military modernization. china increased defense spending by 75% over the last decade, 6% this year alone. they're leapfrogging us in capabilities like a.i. and hypersonics. and they're stepping up ma lean operations against america and our allies. what's the president's response to this? he proposes a budget that would cut funding to programs we need to confront china. it doesn't makence especially when he's looking to swell nondefense spending by a massive 16% this year. i urge all members to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: i yield one minute to the esteemed chair of the armed services committee, mr. adam smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. smith: i want to get the numbers clear. the budge proposed by president biden was $753 billion. by supporting this amendment we support president biden's budget of $753 billion. which was a $12 billion increase over last year's budget. last year's budget, the last budget from the trump administration, only increased the defense budget that year by $3 billion. so a $3 billion increase last year was perfectly acceptable to my republican colleagues in the house and senate under president trump. a $12 billion increase this year is not. so the numbers are being dramatically, just presented here as some kind of cut when it's actually a bigger increase that trump -- than trump did in his last year in the white house. let me make clear. i see the threats. i do agree with my republican colleagues on that point. i don't support the previous amendment that does a $75 billion cut. i understand the threat environment and i know that we need to modernize to meet that threat environment but the other thing i see is decades of waste and wasteful expenditures. on programs like the f-35, on the ford class carrier, can i get an additional 30 seconds? we spent money in a very imprudent way. we have got to instill discipline at the spoang we get value for the dollars that we spend. simply giving them another $25 billion does not do that. $753 billion is enough. it's even better if we actually start spending it wisely, intelligently and effectively. that doesn't happen if we -- you know i'm a little short, can you give me a little more money? i love the winston churchill quote. gentlemen, we are out of money, now it is time to think. that's the type ofties plin we need at the pentagon, not just to give them a blank check every time they ask. the president's budget is sufficient to meet our needs. i urge support of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized mr. rogers: at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to a real leader on the armed services committee, the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee, mr. wittman of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, republican leader. similar to the previous amendment, i believe this amendment is extremely misguided. in fact, in march 24 of this year, i invited both ms. lee and mr. pocan to attend a classified brief on the existential threats we face in great power competition. mr. speaker, instead of taking me up on that offer, they continue to turn a blind eye. the chairs of the defense spending reduction caucus don't want to learn about what the threats are. they don't want to learn more about the critical capabilities that would be out of the hands of war fighters if this amendment were to pass. i can stand here and tell that caucus about how this plus up has $9.8 billion in procurement that's indirectly to china, building ships to keep up with china. or i can tell them there's $3 billion for sustainment operations to allow war fighters to conduct global operations including humanitarian operations in places like haiti. or i can tell them there's $3. # billion for military construction to improve facilities in districts across the country. to make sure our service members aren't working in rundown facilities. i can tell there's $5.2 billion for research and development that assures our future service members will have what they need to, when called upon, to do the job or to fight to victory and come home safe. but i don't think any of that is going to resonate because these progressive members don't want to learn about the existential threats we face. these far left members just want to play progressive politics and that means weakening our national security. for the rest of my colleagues here today, this plus-up is good for national security and good for this country. you can ask any service brnch chief or combatant commander because we've asked them and they told us these are things they need going forward. i urge every to vote against this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. jacobs: can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 1 3/4 minutes remain, the gentleman from alabama has two minutes. ms. jacobs: i yield one minute to the distinguished representative from new york, ms. ocasio-cortez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ocasio-cortez: i rise in support of amendment 41 which would cut from the defense appropriations bill. there were accusations that this is about progressive politics but this bill allocates $25 billion more than president biden even requested. so what we should be doing is sticking to the plan, giving the president of the united states what he determines is necessary for defense spending and not a dime more. i yield back to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from beasm is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to one of our outstanding freshmen on the arm armed services committee, mr. karl. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. carl: i rise today to oppose this amendment. there's several different ways to look at this amendment. the budget that we got from the president was before our problems in afghanistan. we're asking for $25 billion to replace $8 obillion to $85 billion we left on the ground for taliban to fight us back. so i ask that we keep an open mind on replacing that equipment, if nothing else. it is critical to pass this bill which includes bipartisan increase. i repeat, bipartisan. how many times do you hear that word? i've been here nine months and i can probably count that on one hand. bipartisan increase in spending to counter threats and project u.s. strength around the world. this amendment would limit readiness and the needed capabilities to counter these threats. passage of this amendment would basically shortchange our military at a time when we need -- they need our support more than ever. i'm proud to have worked on this bill with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. to ensure that our military is fully funded for our men and women in uniform and the resources they need to protect and defend the united states of america. folks in my district in south alabama work hard every day to support the military readiness of this country. unlike president biden and his allies in congress, alabamans understand how important it is to fully fund our military. i urge my colleagues to support our armed forces and oppose this amendment so i turn my time back to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. jacobs: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has the right to close. so the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacobs: ok, great. i hear my colleagues on the other side talk a lot about the need from afghanistan. what's interesting is that in the continuing resolution that this body passed just yesterday, there was additional supplemental funding for afghanistan and yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to vote against it. i also hear them talk about the threats and the briefings that supposedly we were not in. i sit on both the foreign affairs and armed services committee. i assure you uf i've been to every single one of the classified briefings on the threats. i am very aware of the threats. we need to dispel the notion that our ability to respond to threats depends solely on the size of our military. i'm honored to represent san diego they don't need a larger budget but one that takes their needs into account. housing free of mold, child care, housing for their spouses, and a government that goes through every diplomatic channel before making the decision to send them to war. earlier this month, vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general john heiden asked, do you think any taxpayer would pleef that for $700 billion a year we can't have a great defense? we should be able to and it's crazy that we can't. he's right. it is crazy and more of us need to be willing to say what everyone knows is true. we don't need to spend money, even the pentagon themselveses are not asking for. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. the underlying bill before this body, f.y.2022 national defense authorization act, would increase spending by 3% over inflation, a modest increase. it passed our committee with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. this amendment guts the bill. i urge all members to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in part c of house resolution house resolution 1 -- house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in part c. of house report -- part c of house report 117-125, offered by mr. langevin from rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house report 117-125, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. speaker. the united states attracts some of the brightest minds in the world. they can boost economic competitiveness. unfortunately, much of that talent leaves because there are few options to remain. my amendment provides a pathway to citizenship for the best foreign talent to work in the u.s. in support of our national security innovation base. great power competition is a race for talent to maintain our military and technological superiority. we want the brightest minds in the world working for us, not the chinese communist party. so the u.s. has less than 5% of the world's population, so it's no surprise that many great scientific minds are born outside u.s. borders. so then, how are we to maintain our technological superiority over the last 70 years, by way of example? our world-class universities and innovative private sector attract future nobel laureate like machine learning and artificial intelligence. however, our restriblthive -- restrictive pathway to citizenship drives people away. other countries have expedited way to leadership to lure this talent away. it's not potential adversaries. some are setting up r&d facilities in canada because their immigration policies attract highly skilled workers. under this amendment, the secretary of defense would implement a competitive annual process to select scientists with technical expertise in critical technologies and recommend them for proper processing and vetting. it is in our national security interests, not only to have these scientists working on research on our behalf, but also to prevent this talent from working for our adversaries. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. the ramifications of this amendment could be dangerous and far reaching. quite frankly, we should not be looking outside of the united states for such scientists and researchers. we should cultivate our own talent. unfortunately, this bill does nothing to develop that talent. we must ask, which foreign nationals would be eligible for the program? most likely those from china. china is so intent on using our u.s. immigration system to steal our sensitive technologies that the trump administration had to issue a proclamation suspending entry of certain chinese students and researchers. mr. tiffany: the trump administration proclamation stated the people's republic of china is engaging in a wide ranging and heavily resourced campaign to require u.s. sensitive technologies to bolster the capabilities of their military. students or researchers from the p.r.c. studying beyond the undergraduate level are at high risk of being exploited or co-opted by the p.r.c. because of the brutal nature of the chinese communist party the same is true for virtually any chinese national who comes to the united states to study or research. or to otherwise work in sensitive technologies like those contemplated under this amendment. in fact, the department of homeland security told us last year that the chinese government requires its nationals to support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work. the idea for this amendment came at least in part from the commission on artificial intelligence, which called for increasing china brain drain. so clearly, the green cards contemplated under this agreement would go to chinese nationals. the last thing we should do is make it easy for the chinese communist party to gain access to our national security innovation base work. department of defense research or other critical technologies. i would also note that sadly the department of defense does not have a great track record regarding immigrant programs. many of you may remember that the department of defense supported the military program through which foreign nationals were able to enlist in the u.s. military. wants enlisted, they were able to naturalize. the department of defense was not living up to promise to adequately vet and perform high-level background checks on the participants. the program was halted by the obama administration when it was discovered that the department had allowed some chinese spies to enlist in the military. let that sink in. the department of defense let chinese spies enlist in the u.s. military. so i am not comfortable with several aspects of the program created by this amendment. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i reserve, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island has three minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin has two minutes. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: i thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment that would allow a small number of special immigrant visas to the world's top scientists and technical experts selected by the secretary of defense. i trust the secretary of defense to be looking out after the nation's security interests and it's important that our security depends on having access to the top scientists in the world who are committed to the success of our country. you know, we need to take bowled action to -- bold action to make sure we educate and train our american people to be the best scientists they can be. but that doesn't mean that every smart person who loves america was born in america. in fact, some of the most patriotic people i've ever met were immigrants who came here and became americans by choice. it's absolutely clear that nations that attract and retain highly skilled innovators gain a competitive advantage. and we can help do that for america through this very thoughtful plan. for us, the promise of american -- the american dream remains a powerful draw for the world's innovators. this amendment would move us in the right direction and help ensure that america, and not our competitors, benefits. i want to thank mr. langevin for this smart amendment, and i urge its adoption. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from rhode island reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. tiffany: thank you, mr. speaker. we once again hear it will be a small number of people coming in. all we have to do is look at our southern border and other places for hearing about how small numbers of people are going to come into our country. we also hear, trust the secretary of defense. as i cited, in my opening remarks, we had a real problem with the madney program where the obama administration discovered chinese spies in our military. this is a serious, serious situation. and here's the thing that i find frustrating, mr. speaker. we have so many people that project our freedoms and how we view them on other countries, including china, that they treat their people the same way. they simply do not. and it is fully proven that the chinese communist party demands complete feelity of anyone, whether they're in china or they come to our country to go back and give all information to the chinese communist party. they do not protect intellectual property rights, which are a foundation of our freedoms here in america. we should not be sanguine about what this amendment will do. i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i have no further speakers so i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say, when the secretary of defense deems it vital to the national security interests of the united states, this would give that authority to grant this special pathway to the secretary to make that determination. especially -- special immigrant visas, by the way, does streamline the applicants of visas is not new. this is modeled after a 1949 law granting director of the c.i.a. to obtain permanent residency for anyone deemed in the interest of national security or essential to the furtherance of national intelligence missions. today, the secretary of defense has no mechanism for retaining top talent in -- top technical and scientific talent vital to the national security. surprisingly, the department of defense explicitly endorses the amendment. so, again, my amendment's not new or groundbreaking to the immigration conversation. in fact, again, it provides the secretary of defense with the same authority that the director of the c.i.a. has enjoyed since 1949. this authority is not challenged as a less -- as a reckless method that our adversaries exploit because it does not circumvent the current immigration process. all the secretary of defense immigration referrals are subject to the same rigorous and extensive background checks that any other applicant receives. i am confident it will properly -- they will properly vet these applicants as we keep the best talent in the world working on our behalf. i encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and to ensure our continued military and technological superiority, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 105 printed in part c of house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from massachusetts, congresswoman clark. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 105 printed in part c of house report 117-125 offered by mr. bowman of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from new york, mr. bowman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bowman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer a commonsense, good government amendment that has already passed this house on a bipartisan basis. decades ago, congress recognized that there's an inherent conflict of interest when elected officials who decide how taxpayer dollars are spent are also allowed to contract with the federal government to receive those dollars. that is why federal law prohibits every single member of this body from contracting with the federal government. at the time, it was thought there was no need to include the president, vice president, or members of the cabinet in this statutory prohibition because every recent executive had voluntarily divested of their financial conflicts of interest. unfortunately, that trend of presidential transparency was broken by the last administration. if we have learned anything from donald trump, it is that we can no longer rely on norms and tradition to ensure our elected officials do the right thing. in 2014, the general services administration awarded the trump organization a contract to operate a hotel in the taxpayer-owned old post pavilion. a provision in that contract specifically stated that no elected official of the government of the united states shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease or to any benefit that may arise there from. despite this unambiguous prohibition, the g.s.a. shockingly declared that the president could continue to operate this hotel on federal government property and personally benefit from the proceeds of that operation. . as a result it was easier than ever for foreign governments and others to put money directly into president trump's pocket. just ask saudi arabia who reportedly spent $270,000 at the trump hotel in 2017 or the island nation of cyprus who held a conference there or the iraqi sheikh who spent 26 nights at the hotel. the solution to the problem is simple. my amendment inserts, the president, vice president, and any cabinet member into the existing statutory prohibition on members of congress contracting with the federal government. with the addition of these eight words we can ensure every elected official is free from the conflict of interest associated with both deciding who gets federal contracts and then benefiting from those contracts. the american people deserve to know their president is working for them, not to line their own pockets. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and hold the president, vice president, and members of the cabinet to the same standard of conduct we hold ourselves. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. this amendment would prohibit the president, vice president and cabinet members from contracting with the federal government. the amendment adds broad, new language to the criminal code, and could discourage people from entering federal service. we should want and encourage the most qualified people to run for office and serve in our federal government. this amendment is completely outside the scope of the ndaa and nothing more than a desperate attempt to score political points. mrs. fischbach: this is the kind of unrelated amendment that does not belong in the ndaa. we are now eight month into the biden administration, yet democrats continue to push legislation originally targeted and mentioned by the previous speaker that it is targeted at the trump administration. but what else can democrats talk about? rising inflation caused by president biden's failed economic policies? rising crime caused by democrat's defunding the police? the biden border crisis? if democrats were serious about ethics reform, they would carefully consider this as a stand-alone bill. instead they choose to slap it on to an unrelated bill with no discussion or thought. this amendment and provision should go through regular order so members have the opportunity to debate and consider ethics reforms. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bowman: to my colleagues who oppose this amendment i ask this simple question. if they think the president should be allowed to contract with the federal government do they support repealing the current statute that prohibits every member frf the body from contracting with the federal government? of course they don't. that would be outrageous. my amendment is commonsense. it will apply to any president regardless of party affiliation, it will help restore integrity to the office of the president by closing the door on self-enrichment at the white house. and it will prevent some of the corruption that defined the trump presidency from ever happening again. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and impose the same standards of conduct we impose on ourselves turnovers federally elected official. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is not the bill for this amendment. mrs. fischbach: this is not the bill for this amendment. it certainly should go through the process and given consideration and discussion and do true ethics reforms instead of amendments that simply target the former president and his administration. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to -- it is now in order to -- pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. further proceedings on this question is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: pursuant to house resolution 667 i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc 2 consisting of aryments 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, #, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 2, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, printed in part c of house report 117-125. offered by mr. smith of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 207 printed in part c of house report 117-125, be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: amendment number 207 is amended to read as follows. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request of the gentleman from washington? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the original request from the gentleman from washington? without objection, the amendment is a modified. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the en bloc package which contains my amendment, number 384, to create four critical technology security centers. these centers would be created through competitive grants issued by the department of homeland security to universities and federally funded reserge and development centers including national laboratories. each center would have a different focus with the first four covering network technology, network industrial control systems, open source software, and federal critical software. respectively. each center would rigorously test the security of a set of tech knolls. developed with input from the cyber security and infrastructure security agency. the compromise of which would represent the highest level of risk to our critical infrastructure. with respect to those specific technologies, senators -- centers would evaluate their overall security posture. they would develop new tools and capabilities for vulnerability discovery management and mitigation. and support the remediation of the vulnerabilities they find. this is an important recommendation of the cyberrer space commission and i thank my fellow commissioner mr. gallagher for co-sponsoring this amendment. i thank chairman thompson for his support of the measure. soy urge my -- i urge members to support the en bloc package and the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. rogers, is recognized. mr. rogers: this epidemic bloc amendment was put together in close consultation with the minority. i urge all members to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. i apologize, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and i thank the ranking member. for his support. longtime friends. let me quickly indicate that as i have embraced the ndaa over the years, it has always been my focus to deal with the military personnel and to make us the best, the strongest, and the most well-represented -- well rf respected and appreciated. i want to thank this committee and the rules committee for allowing my amendments 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198. many of them speak for themselves. let me clearly say i worked year after year as a breast cancer survivor to ensure that triple-negative breast cancer which is one of the most deadly forms of kanser that women in the military have the services that they need. let me just share with you that triple negative breast cancer has a survival rate of five years. the key to beating the cancer is early detection. it's $10 million to enhance research and help these women. in addition i've asked $2 million for post-traumatic stress disorder. i even under then colonel murtha organized a center in my district. the most important point for supporting this amendment is it still exists. operation iraqi freedomming, enduring freedom, 11 out of 100. vietnam war, 30 out of 100. it is still needed and we appreciate this amendment. i also want to thank you for recognizing that we are going into space and now my amendment says that we should have a bill that studies the risks proposed by manmade space debris in low-earth orbit including recommendations and remediation of such risk. it is extremely important. finally i want to speak to a very important amendment dealing with the long-standing history of african-americans in the united states military to create a task force that respects the fact that chris pus attucks, a runaway -- that crispus attucks, an escaped slave, fought in the revolutionary war with george washington. this story is a long story. the united states army and others have a very long history this task force will determine what the impact of slavery and what the impact of our soldiers from the very early years who happen to be ex-slaves fighting, all the way through the many different wars, i believe we will find that those who are descended from enslaved africans who fought in wars from the very beginning. it's an important story. it should be told. i'm very pleased that this particular amendment is included and finally the one dealing with the cadet who are in the -- the mid shipmen who are -- do you have 10, 15 seconds. mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: to conclude that this task force will be a significant historical study will be appreciated. let me quickly say that having worked with our various nominees to the military academies, one in particular was an individual who stuttered. by the time he finished they said he could not have his command. they never assessed him in the academy while he was there i believe this is an important assessment to assess that vital $250,000 student so that when they graduate he will have a command even if he's a stutterer because he made it into the academy, he was successful academically and he should be allowed to serb his country. thank you for considering my amendment and for them to stay in to become law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i would like to yield a minute and a half to my friend and cleag from texas, mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. gohmert: i rise in support of amendment 165. it creates a separate track for military judges to prevent undo influence from command above. in the 1970's, it was seen that it would be good for trial defense attorneys to have a separate track so that they were not raided by the same person who was pushing to have a court martial. that had created some problems. at times some abuses. the separation and the creation of a trial defense service served a great purpose. but before 2004, each of the judge advocates general of the armed services subscribed to the policy that all judge advocates should have a broad career and move from job to job. they became quite good at all trades but masters of none. so junior judge advocates would try few court martials and move to another job. it was not helpful overall. by giving the military judges a separate career track, it will ensure avoidance of undo command influence and will give our service members the fair trials they deserve. so i would encourage everyone to vote for this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, reserves. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to -- 1 1/2 minutes -- i apologize -- to the gentleman from illinois, mr. krishnamoorthi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. krishnamoorthi: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge support of my amendment which would permit the secretary of h.h.s. to receive unused and oftentimes just about to expire covid vaccines from states and be able to redistribute them to foreign partners or allies. now, my primary legislation before the body in congress is called novid, it's a play on words, no more covid, and this amendment would help vaccinate 60% of the population of the world's 92 poorest countries. i hope this legislation is taken up by this body and supported by the administration. in the meantime, the least -- the very least that we can do is to donate unused vaccines from the states. now, these vaccines are about to expire. they're going to be no good in just a matter of months. and so instead of allowing them to go to waste, we should donate them abroad. this is not only the right thing to do to help to end suffering abroad, but it's the smart thing to do because then it helps to prevent variants that are generated abroad from coming back home to the united states and further wreaking havoc in our economy. on top of that, we see the chinese communist party going around the world peddling their ineffective vaccine, and we should be instead vaccinating those populations with effective vaccines. again, i hope that the administration utilizes this amendment to great impact, and i hope that they also do more and endorse my novid legislation. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to an outstanding fresh men member -- fresh men member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> my amendment clearly states that israel is linked to our relationship and our military's support for israel. as our strongest ally in the middle east, it's critical we conduct military exercises with israel to prevent interoperability and readiness. we must ensure that israel has the capabilities it needs to defend itself from terrorists with consistent and reliable transfers of defense articles. mr. jackson: last year, president trump negotiated the historic abraham accords, and to honor that, my amendment states clear support for israel's work to promote peace. while some in this body have made their disdain for the jewish state of israel clear, i believe our relationship with israel is nonnegotiable. our friends in israel are currently questioning our commitment because of some of my more radical colleagues have forced the speaker to withdraw financial support for the iron dome yesterday. we must take this step to show the only democracy in the middle east that they can count on us for support. with that i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased at this time to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. kelly: mr. speaker, i rise in support of en bloc number 2 which includes three amendments i worked on. amendment number 217 establishes a pilot transition assistance program for military spouses, offering similar services to those available for members of our armed forces. this includes mental health first aid training. since military spouses are well positioned to notice warning signs for any mental health or substance abuse struggles a new veteran might experience. amendment number 218 will improve interagency communication as the low-earth orbit becomes more crowded with defense, civil, and commercial space assets. finally, amendment number 158 with rep gonzalez will create a national digital reserve corps to bring private sector talent into the federal government to work on short-term projects. we need more cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and develop our expertise in the federal government if we're going to meet the challenges of the twent. i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc -- challenges of the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to support this en bloc. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to a fresh men member of our conference, mr. garcia of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garcia: i thank the gentleman from alabama. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my critical bipartisan, bicameral bill, the military spouse licensing relief act, which was included as an amendment in this en bloc package. my amendment would support military families by allowing military spouses with valid professional licenses in one state reciprocity in another state that their spouse is stationed with military orders to. this effectively allows the spouse to cross deck their professional license to another state while their spouse is on active duty. more than 30% of spouses are in a profession that requires license. they must often spend time and money to reapply for a professional license they already have. on average, military families lose thousands of dollars per move in lost wages and fees caused by relicensing barriers. and in many cases, the spouse ends up not even applying for the license because it takes too long or, worse, too costly to do so. the struggle often threatens the economic security and quality of life as their loved ones serve our nation. no military spouse should have to decide between job security and being with their family. military families already sacrifice so much in service to our great country, and we must work to protect these families. at a time in which our communities are also facing critical shortages of skilled professionals like nurses and teachers, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that will drastically improve the quality of life for our military families as well as our communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington state is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. manning. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. manning: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the bipartisan national defense authorization act, and i urge my colleagues to support the bill and my five amendments included in the bill. my state of north carolina is home to eight military bases and more than 800,000 active duty military service members and veterans. the ndaa will give these service members a 2.7% pay raise and add a crucial level of accountability by taking the prosecution of sexual assault and other crimes out of the chain of command. i urge support for my amendment, requiring the military to consider the benefits of using electric vehicles for students at military installations. increws use of electric -- increase use of electric vehicles by our military will help accelerate our transition to clean energy and create good-paying jobs in districts like mine. this bill also includes my amendments to express concern about the safety of afghan women and girls and to require the secretary of defense to appoint an official to assist the state department with continued evacuations from the afghanistan. we must do better for the people who helped our troops. i urge my colleagues to support this act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from puerto rico, ms. jenniffer gonzalez-colon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from puerto rico is recognized for two minutes. miss gonzalez-colon: i want to rise in support of this en bloc. my bills include three amendments submitted by my office that will help directly our nation's security and, of course, the people of puerto rico. the first one is amendment 162 which authorizes research into health effects of nearly 70 years of live fire training. as well, amendment 163, to support the puerto rico national guard, not only used in the aftermath of hurricane irma and marina in 2019 and used again in march of this year. the puerto rico national guard has used these ships to provide life-saving food, water, and other equipment to the u.s. virgin islands, vieques and culebra after any natural disaster. we cannot do this unless they are replaced. lastly is amendment number 164 that requires the secretary of the army to allocate modular small arms range to puerto rico. this is to increase the readiness of the armed forces. right now, puerto rico only has a single firearms range for the department of defense personnel. that means that there's scheduling conflicts and decreases readiness on the island. i think those amendments could be supported. i want to thank chairman smith and ranking member rogers who i really appreciate all his good work on this ndaa that includes numerous promissions for the people of port week as a territory included in this en bloc. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from puerto rico yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. lawrence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. lawrence: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in support of f.y. 2022 ndaa. as the co-chair of the democratic women's caucus, i'm proud to see two of my amendments, 238 and 239, included as part of this en bloc. these amendments would help us understand the factors that influence women service members to stay in or leave the military, as well as to take action to improve mental health outcomes for pregnant veterans. unfortunately, pregnant veterans have been found to be disproportionately impacted by the mental health disorder and be must given adequate support to prevent childbirth complications. this language would encourage the v.a. to support the use of dualas -- doulas for expected mothers and for pregnant veterans. this is a time we must come together and our support of the growing number of women in the military. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to my friend and an outstanding leader on the financial services committee, mr. hill from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. hill: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman of the committee and my ranking member for the world-class work on this ndaa package. this package contains two of my amendments. first, my bipartisan bill, h.r. 3146, the save act, passed by the house unanimously earlier this year, is included as an amendment. the save act builds on the good work of the armed services committee to include important provisions to counter china by improving the u.s. supply chain independence and security. secondly, this en bloc includes my amendment to require the creation of an interagency strategy within the united states government to disrupt and dismantle the production and trafficking of the drug captigon that's being produced by the syrian regime, led by assad. in addition to regularly committing war crimes against his own people, the assad regime is now becoming a narco-state. the united states government must do all we can to reduce the industrial production of this drug taking place currently in syria. i thank my friends for their support of these amendments. i urge support of this en bloc, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr.smith: i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. mr. rogers: i have no no further speakers and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from washington. mr.smith: i urge support of the en bloc and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendments as modified. the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified. those in favor say aye those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the en bloc amendments as modified are agreed to. the gentleman. >> i ask for a recorded vote. >> on the en bloc? the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr.smith: pursuant to house resolution 667 i offer amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3 consisting of amendments 264, 265, 266, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 26 #, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 270, 271, 272, 272, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 28 #, 2 will 4 and 2882 the the 2 the and 298, 299, #00, 301, 302, # 03, 305, 308, # 09, 311, # 12, 318, 316, 320, 321, # 22, # 23, # 24, and 330. 333. 334. 336. 336, 338, 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350. # 5 #, # 6 # 5367360, 362363 and p 65 printed in house report. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to house resolution 667, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes mr. smith. mr.smith: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. ocasio-cortez. ms. ocasio-cortez: earlier this year in columbia in the middle of the pandemic there were new taxes on basic food items. when they demonstrated the government responded with brutality. 68 people were burdened. this is part of a pattern of human rights resolutions. he is planning to aerialial fume tkpwaeugs which most countries stopped using. this would require to issue a report. it would limit the u.s. transfer of weapons tore many of the demonstrators and prohibit u.s. funds. similarly in 2018 we stood horrified by the assassination of the journalist. our amendment would prohibit funds they show up at our borders from the inhumane conditions that we create in their homelands. and i submit this amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to mrs. miller of west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> i rise in support of this bill and four amendments. the first amendment would require a report on the status of women in afghanistan. the rights we fought to secure for them are in dire peril. the second will hold the administration accountable by requesting a report on the amount of money and materials left behind in afghanistan. the third blocks any funding for intelligence sharing and ensures no taxpayer dollars are wasted working with the taliban and captain be trusted after the deadly attacks at the airport. a memorial for the 13 servicemembers who perished securing the airport. they lost their lives by protecting americans and their allies. we need to never forget their sacrifice. i yield back my time. >> the jam reserves. smith schmidt i have no further speakers. i reserve my time. mr. rogers: i yield four minutes to the ranking member of the natural resources key, my friend and colleague from arkansas, mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for four minutes. mr. westerman: thank you. i rise in support in one amendment included in this package which would add the bipartisan alexander-lofgren the v.i.p. act. the act would provide lifetime passes for veterans and gold-star family members and free passes for active duty members. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the amendment which passed the house earlier this year with 420 in favor against zero and 150 bipartisan co-sponsor, senator sinema and senator boozman are leading this. in addition to this broad support has been endorsed by conservation, recreation and veterans groups and in just the past month as we faced the situation in afghanistan, we have awoken to the heroism. they return home carrying visible and invisible wounds from their time in combat. the v.a. crisis hotline had an uptick in calls despite the suicide rate was the lowest in 12 years and seven veterans per day. this is what makes this more vital. this could be healing and hope for veterans and wounded who turn to nature for sole ace and comfort. financial barriers should not be as they fought so hard to defend. our veterans and gold star families deserve free access that can never be taken away from them. though we can never repay the debt, this amendment is a small gesture to symbolize their sack cry tieses were not in vein. that's why i'm a strong support of an amendment that passed earlier to locate the memorial on the national mall here in washington, d.c.. our nation's patriots who sought to defend our nation deserve nothing less than a lasting tribute on the national mall. i support the amendment and the nd arch a conference to ensure and fight it will does. i would be remiss if i didn't miss several wildfire amendments. better paid benefits is well deserved and well earned we must address the short and long-term issues which means addressing the catastropheic through better management. 6 million acres have burned while some of the largest fires. fire seasons are getting longer and more intense because of lack of forest management and puts a strain on our firefighters. i would like to extend an invitation to work on this issue together to stpop putting our firefighters in impossible situations year after year. i ask to support my amendment and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. mr.smith: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield to the gentlewoman from texas. >> i rise today in support of this en bloc which includes my friend and colleague representative dean phillips to support a report on the cybersecurity model on small business. recognizing the increased cyber vulnerabilities of small contractors, there is a ms. newman: framework. and to assess implementation of cybersecurity requirements. i'm concerned that the act has created another hurdle to have them competing. no question that our military relies on the small businesses making up our network and voices should be heard. strong national security and cybersecurity in a thriving defense industrial base shouldn't be mutually exclusive goals and i hope this will be a path forward. i would like to rise in support of following en bloc amendment which includes my supply chain that i was proud to interviews with mr. golden. we must ensure supply chains are protected and with every business i meet, i continue to hear how they are experiencing disruptions due to covid-19 and prevent further disruptions we must act now. protecting our supply chain is more than just business, it ace matter now of national security. and my amendment will begin this process by direct inthe c.i.a. to our national security, economic security and public health as well as recommend necessary actions. it is my goal along with my colleagues that this amendment will prevent another supply chain crisis. i urge support of these two amendments and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington continue to reserve? mr. rogers: i yield to the retired germ officer, mr. perry of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. perry: i interviews this amendment combatting ccp dictates. on september # 1, china began to demand that specific vessel before the maritime claims. it includes the name and number, the satellite number and recent locations and cargo, vessels needed to nuclear vessels and as well as any vessel the c.c.p. deems to be a threat which is vague . the united states united states has repeated said we reject claims made by china within the so-called 10-line or whatever they want to call it as virtually all of those claims are both imagined and illegal. this position was prominently reinforced by former secretary pompeo in july of -- july 13, 2020. fortunately, it appears to be the case that the administration agrees with this assessment and so with that i urge passage of this amendment to push back against china's lawless activity in the south china sea, and i yield the back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington continue to reserve? mr. smith: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: again, this en bloc was put together in close consultation by the majority with the minority. i urge all members to support it, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i concur in the remarks of the ranking member. i urge support for the en bloc and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from washington. the question is on the amendments en bloc. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i call for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, pursuant to h.res. 667, i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendment en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 printed in part c of house report 117-125 offered by mr. smith of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and urge passage of the en bloc amendment. and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to an outstanding member of our conference, ms. tenney. 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: 1 1/2 minutes to the lady from, no. ms. tenney: i rise in support of amendment 333 authorizes a long overdue china watcher program within the department of state. this program aims to monitor and combat chinese malign influence across economic and political sectors in certain high-priority countries. the people's republic of china is challenging the united states at multiple levels and remains a threat to our vitally important interest across the globe. the threats posed by the p.r.c. demand greater resources which are exactly what this amendment delivers. my second amendment number 343 establishes a program for the department of the air force to develop a proof of concept quantum >> tragic disaster. the fundamental misunderstanding of the situation on the ground, a faulty withdrawal, and poor strategic decision-making in washington put our troops in harm's way, leading to the abandonment of american citizens, the death of 13 brave american service members, including critical injuries to two marines from the first congressional district of wisconsin. mr. steil: my amendments to the national defense bill are directed at getting answers for our troops and the american people and i ask my colleagues for their support. it would require the treasury department to report to congress on the u.s. and u.n. sanctions on the taliban. we must look at the current gaps in our sanctions and ensure that the taliban is not able to finance their takeover by profiting from the drug trade and rare earth minerals. my second amendment would require the treasury department to regularly report to congress on any sanctions waivers provided to allow transactions between financial institutions and targeted individuals. in addition, my amendment requires the treasury department to list out foreign banks that conduct significant transactions for persons that have been sanctioned for human rights abuses or corruption. my third amendment will hold iran accountable. iran has been emboldened. at a time when this administration is signaling they intend to remove sanctions with iran, we must ensure u.s. sanctions are enforce to prevent the largest state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining a nuclear weapon. congress must understand the full nature of iran's power and undertake a full audit of how iranian-backed groups in the iraqi popular mobilization forces took advantage of this in the anti-isis campaign. finally, i introduced an amendment with my colleague -- my colleague, congresswoman dean. our bill improves intelligence coordination to combat the illicit financing of human trafficking. i urge my colleagues to support these amendments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington continue to reserve? mr. smith: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment, and i want to thank the gentleman from alabama for the time. the amendment i speak of comes after many years of experiencing well-documented u.s. navy maintenance backlogs and defishenses in much -- deficiencies in much-needed upgrades. our military needs to be the readiest it can be in order to meet the challenges of the future. and this amendment will help do that. shipyards across the country are ready, willing, and able to support the maintenance and upgrade requirements needed by our naval assets, including, one, in superior, wisconsin, in my congressional district. these nonhome port shipyards can support vital surge capacity, addressing maintenance needs that cannot always be addressed in a timely fashion at home ports. this change will also support good family wage jobs across the country. i am real pleased to have worked with representative -- with the representative across the border. and by utilizing those people that work in the twin ports of superior and duluth with their exceptional workmanship that they provide for shipbuilding on the great lakes i think this is -- this makes -- this makes this amendment very worthy. and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from washington continue to reserve? mr. smith: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, a real leader on the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from alabama for yielding. and i rise to express concerns with the thompson amendment number 427. the amendment requires the department of homeland security, d.h.s., to establish a medical countermeasures program for preparedness and response capabilities. it also requires d.h.s. to maintain and preposition a stockpile of medical countermeasures. after dealing with the ongoing pandemic for the past year and a half, we can all appreciate the necessity being prepared to deal with these threats. however, this new program is completely duplicative of existing initiatives at h.h.s. currently, under h.h.s., the strategic national stockpile, or s.n.s., is part of the federal medical response infrastructure for such attacks. the public health emergency medical countermeasures enterprise determines optimal allocation of resources and organization of the stockpile to best address high-priority threats. this interagency coordination already includes the input at the department of homeland security and coordinates federal efforts to combat these threats. while i do believe we should evaluate our country's pandemic response, given the covid-19 pandemic, we do not need to create a duplicative program that will only lead to confusion and hinder coordination. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman from washington continue to reserve? mr. smith: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: again, i want to state this en bloc package was reached in close coordination between the majority and minority. i urge its favorable support, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama yields. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i also support the en bloc. this will be the last chance to speak for me before we conclude the amendment process, so i do just want to make a final pitch for the underlying piece of legislation. i think the amendment process has gone just fine. i think the underlying bill is incredibly well put together in the manner which we have described, has bipartisan support. reflects a lot of the ideas and priorities of members of congress from both sides of the aisle as well. and from even outside the committee. i think we have an excellent piece of legislation that will help meet the national security needs of our country. and i urge support for the bill and the final passage process which will happen at some point tomorrow after we vote on, i don't know, 18, 20 don't forget about what brought us here in the first place and put the men and women in the best possible position to carry out the pheug. i urge final support for the en bloc amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc ordered by the gentleman from washington. the question is on the amendments en bloc. those in favor say aye those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> i call for a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, kwraeupd. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed it is now in order to consider amendment number 241 peupbted in part kr-frp of 117-125. >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 241 printed in part offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico pursuant to house resolution the gentlewoman from new mexico and a member opposed each will control five minutes. leg leg the united statesgovernment conducted more than 200 above-ground nuclear tests. these tests exposed communities and people living and working in these communities to radiation. tens of thousands of downwinders contracted cancers and other diseases. in 1999 of these exposures congress passed an agt to provide a one-time payment in addition to the millers and transporters. downwinders in many states including my beautiful state of new mexico were not included and left to deal with the health effects of these explosions like the very first bomb on their own. i met with tina, a member of a coalition, they told me the stories of the loved ones who died as a result of these tests and have fought so long for the government to recognize them and their pain. we do hear their voices and we see their pain and we must act. it is not new mexicans who suffered, but people from washington, to the dakotas and all the way to guam. i urge my colleagues to support amendment 241 who are were exposed to radiation during the government's nuclear texas. identical language was passed in the national defense authorization in 2019 and 2020. and congress needs to acknowledge the harm nuclear testing bypassing this amendment. we owe a formal apology. my amendment is supported by members on both sides of the aisle and i urge my colleagues to vote for it. i reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new mexico reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. near the end of world warld ii treupbt teu test site in new mexico. between the first test in 1945 and 1963, the united states did conduct above-ground tests. these activities and others may have led to cancer in some people. that's why in 1990 congress passed the radiation compensation act to provide restitution. this would add to them an apology to individuals in many states. and this amendment would stepped an apology to states that are not under. after congress expanded it, the national academy studied the effect on the health of surrounding populations. this study included the indication that it is unlikely that radiation was a cause to developing cancer. simply put, the science does not support the testing caused cancer. despite this finding, the amendment would declare that u.s. atomic weapons cancer in arizona, you ta, texas, oregon, north and south dakota and the northern phaerpb islands. and they forbid americans from attending school or church. i wish they would toll the science not only when they find it convenient. any change must be considered by the key to ensure that compensation is for illnesses. and on a personal note, i would add my father in 1945 was serving in the 88 infantry and prepared to ship out for the japanese main left hand. that invasion would have created a slaughter on both sides unimaginable to history. the development of this weapon prevented that from occurring and saved countless japanese and american lives. that is not something i intend to apologize for. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized. >> because of the importance of those tests and the impact of the people on new mexico which we recognize and the importance that it played in our history. ms. leger fernandez: what we are asking for is an apology not for the bomb but for the impact, the impact that it has on those haoeufbs, those people and those communities who are people that are known. they are grandparents and children, they are my neighbors and i believe that at the very lives h* least, we must apologize for the impact that they suffered with regard to their health. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new mexico yields. the gentleman from california yields as well. pursuant to house resolution 66 #, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by gentlelady from new mexico. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, amendment is agreed to. >> i would like a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-s, the yeas and nays are ordered further proceedings on this question are postponed. the understands that amendment number 304 will not be offered. now in order to consider number 411 for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 435 printed in part c of house report 117-125. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. torres: mr. speaker, i'd like to present my amendment, number 457. the speaker pro tempore: amendment number 435, i believe. mrs. torres: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 435 printed in part c of house report 117-125 offered by mrs. torres of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 667, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. torres, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. to debate amendment number 435. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. torres: i rise in support of my amendment, a very simple amendment. my amendment seeks to restore congressional notification requirements on a category of munitions expert licenses. for decades, when the -- when a u.s. company wanted to export these munitions, the sale required authorization from the federal government. the state department has been responsible for issuing approvals for most types of weapons once it has assessed any impact on our national security or our foreign policy. the state department was also required to notify congress every time it approved a license. unfortunately, the trump administration changed all of this. it removed the licensing of firearms export sales from the state department to the department of commerce and it changed the standard review process. they also ended the congressional notification process. the department of congress -- the department of commerce is currently not required to notify congress when they issue a munitions export license. and i strongly oppose those changes. given the serious national security implications of foreign munition sales and the possibility that those weapons could end up in the wrong hands, congress has a clear policy interest in understanding when they occur. this amendment restores those notification requirements by mandating the department of commerce follow the same procedure and guidelines that was in place prior to that change. frankly, i am surprised that anyone is objecting to restoring a long-standing oversight power. i hope my colleagues will support my amendment to ensure that foreign munition sales receive a careful scrutiny they deserve, and i urge a yes vote on this amendment. and with that i reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment and i am opposed to the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. president trump carried forward an initiative that begun in 2010 focusing on improving processes for reviewing arms exports, including making necessary updates to the united states munitions list. mr. perry: now, specifically, the items that moved fell within the category of firearms, for sure. however, only certain items were removed. not all. the state department retains oversight of those defense articles and services that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage. or in the case of weapons, are inherently for military end use. what does that m.v.p.? that -- what does that mean? it means silence, components, parts and accessory designed for automatic firearms. they remain on the munitions list under state department jurisdiction. these are still subject to congressional notification requirements as appropriate? for the items that were removed to commerce, their exports still requires authorization but under commerce department regulations. just keep in mind, we compete. even arms manufacturers in the united states still have to compete globally. now, we can either sell american arms to our allies or we can have them go shop with russia or china. that will be great. now, the department of commerce has been regulating exports of shotguns and specific types of ammunitions for decades and continues to do so today. i mean, for goodness sake, even president biden, who really doesn't have a clue about weapons, recommended that we all get a shotgun. didn't he? he said that. the house foreign affairs committee has the ability and responsibility to request any licenses or authorizations approved or denied by commerce. pursuant to the expert control reform act passed on august, to 18. -- august, 2018. to date, there hasn't been any inappropriate licenses issued to any of these entities. none. moreover, no one has required licensing information from commerce since this shift. just simply hasn't been any problems, ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker. this is a solution that's looking for a problem. there isn't a problem. there's no basis for this amendment as it directly contradicts the spirit of this regulatory change. shifting this regulatory function to commerce does not and has never -- never has governed the illicit transfer of firearms. this is about the illicit transfer of firearms. if we wanted to get to the illicit transfer of firearms and my colleagues on the other side were really serious about that, they would be interested to find out what happened to fast and furious. that was an illicit transfer of firearms. this amendment falsely claims the illicit transfer of firearms. this will not address that. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. speaker. we can reserve the debate of whether the state department or the commerce department should have jurisdiction over gun sales -- gun sale exports. this amendment is not about that. this amendment is very simple. it restores a long-standing requirement to notify congress. a notification. that is not dictating to anyone where they should sell or who they should sell weapons to. simply report to congress. i request -- respectfully request a yes vote on this amendment, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to reiterate that the house foreign affairs committee, the house foreign affairs committee, that's the committee in congress. that's congress, by the way. that's what congress is -- can request and has the authorization to approve or deny these exports pursuant to the control reform act passed in august of 2018. it's already covered. all we're doing is adding redundancy. all we're doing is making it more difficult, if we pass this, for our allies -- for us to sell our allies things that they want to have from us and we want to sell to them. why would we make that more difficult? it seems to me we want to help our allies and our allies want to help us. mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to house resolution 667, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. we request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. . the chair understands amendment number 453 will not be covered. -- offered. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 4350 is postponed. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021 the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for 60 mince as the designee of the majority leader. mr. green: i rise tonight to preview a resolution that i hope to present to the entirety of the congress for a vote. it is h.res. 670. i rise tonight to present this resolution because of what i have seen by way of television at the southern border. what i have seen is more than deplorable. more than horrific. for me it is inhumane. and here is the resolution that i hope to have my colleagues give consideration to. resolution condemning the inhumane treatment of haitian migrants at the southern border of the united states. whereas some u.s. customs, might i pause to indicate that we should accentuate the word some. not all. not all u.s. customs agents are engaged in this abhorrent behavior, this inhumane behavior. not all. i would never say all. i would never intend all. i am in congress today, i believe, because of an uncle who was a deputy sheriff. he was a person that hi great respect for -- i had great respect for, great admiration for, and he proclaimed when i was a very young child that i would be a lawyer. i didn't know what a lawyer was, but because of the respect that i had for him, and the belief that he was right i wanted to be a lawyer. and from that moment forward from being a young child less than 10 years of age, i wanted to be a lawyer. hence i went to law school and by fortuitous circumstance, i happen to have been associated with a professor at the law school who was running for public office. which caused me to find my way into politics. i owe a lot to just a sentence, a statement from someone who was engaged in law enforcement that i had great respect for. whereas some u.s. customs border patrol agents, not all, have treated haitian migrants inhumanely, charging them on horseback while using reins as slashes, now, therefore -- as lashes, now, therefore, be it resolved that the house of representatives condemns and denounces the actions of those customs and border patrol agents. note that i said of those customs and border patrol agents. only the ones who engaged in this despicable behavior. resolved that the house of representatives condemns and denounces the actions of those customs and border patrol agents who confronted some, not all of the haitians, but some haitians shan migrants on -- haitian mirants on horseback using their reins as lashes. i believe that the same house that has condemned its members for conduct thought to be unbecoming, the same house that has condemned the behavior of people who are not associated with this house. it has been done. i believe that this same house should condemn the conduct of these agents, the conduct, what they did. the conduct should be condemned. why do i take such a strong position? i take such a strong position because i know what injustice looks like. i have had persons in my lifetime to do some very ugly things and require some ugly things of me. i was required to sit in the back of the bus. i know what injustice looks like. i know what it tastes like. i had to drink from filthy colored water fountains. white water found fountain, colored water fountain. white water fountain pristine, clean. colored water fountain, filthy. but that's what i was relegated to. i know what it smells like. i had to go into necessary facilities. that's what we call it in the law. but necessary facility is nothing more than a toilet. and i was forced to go into these filthy toilets. and this is where i would have to wash my hands in a filthy facility with water that sometimes was colored in its own being. it was brown. so i what it looks like. i know what it tastes like. i know what it smells like. i also know what it hurts like. i know what it's like to be required to leave a seat so someone else could take a seat. i know what that feels like. i know what it feels like to have to step off the sidewalk to let other persons pass. this was the segregated south i grew up in. i'm a son of the segregated south. the rights and privileges that the constitution recognized for me, my neighbors in the segregated south denied me. so i know what injustice is like. i also know what invidious discrimination is like. tonight, let's just talk about injustice. because i know what it looks like, i also know how it behaves injustice is not static. it's dynamic. it's like this pandemic. it's like the virus. it can change, do not assume that the injustice inflicted upon some today won't be inflicted upon others tomorrow. do not assume that injustice will only find its way to those who look like me. injustice has a way of metaphor -- -- metamorphosing into hate that can consume all of us. with this understanding. i want to just share some of what i see as i reflect on what happened at the border. this is something that i believe to be relevant. in that this is a defiction of -- depiction of where plaque people were at one -- black people were at one time in this country. if you look to the far end of this picture, it's actually a portrait, if you will, you'll see a person on a horse and he has a whip and he seems to be screaming and he seems to be about to use this whip, he's about to lash this person who is between him and another person on a horse. now, what is to be noticed about this is the person who is on foot, this person seems to have his hands in a position of certificate render. -- surrender. doesn't have a weapon. doesn't seem to be a threat. to men on horses. and you note there is a rope that has him tethered to the horse on the man in front of it. and if you note, look at his eyes, if you can see his eyes. he has the look of regret and sorrow. he has a look of a person who wishes that he could somehow express something that would cause his condition to subside. he seems to be pleading with the person in front of him. possibly realizing what's about to happen as a result of what the person behind him will do. this is a sad comentary on our country -- commentary on our country. a sad commentary on what the united states of america was. it's a sad commentary. it's something we don't like to discuss. we don't want to acknowledge. we don't want it taught in our schools that this is the truth about a bygone era in this country. but you can't escape the truth. truth crushed to earth will ride again. this is a sad commentary. let's move forward. this -- by the way, the prior depiction was from 1817. this depiction occurred at the edmund he pettus bridge. all in congress are aware of the edmund pettus bridge because the honorable john lewis was here. we all know his story what happened there. the honorable john lewis and our friends. we went to jail together several times. we talked to each other while we were in jail. john lewis was in jail the same as he was with us. he was a wonderful, marvelous person and i miss him. i believe we do. all of us. but i remember him explaining how you cannot tolerate injustice. you can't. those who tolerate injustice perpetuate injustice. some things bear repeating. those who tolerate injustice perpetuate injustice. this gathering at the edmund pettus bridge was about people who are no longer going to tolerate injustice. they made their minds up. if you've ever been to the edmund pettus bridge, if you haven't been there you should go, it has a crest such that when you initially approach it you can't readily see what lies on the other side. you don't know what your fate is if there is something that would harm you on the other side. so when you march across the edmund pettus bridge and reach that crest, you can see what your fate is if there are persons of ill will waiting for you. these marchers on what is known now these marchers, on what is now known as bloody sunday, were marching up the edmund pettus bridge from selma, to montgomery. they had no weapons. they had no means of defending themselves against persons who had clubs. but their fate they saw, yet they marched on. as they were confronted by the cons tab lair, they marched on -- by the constabulary, they marched on. i've often thought if they had resisted, put up a fight, would bloodyi sunday have the same representation, the same meaning that it has now? because when these images were shown around the world, it gave a president the opportunity to take some affirmative action to bring about significant change. but this is what was happening on bloody sunday. you see, there are men on horses. these men on horses are moving toward the edmund pettus bridge which you can see in the distance. and you can see that there are other men moving this way. and in here you have peaceful protesters. just marching. this is a representation that a good many persons of african ancestry have indelibly, indelibly printed within their memory. bloody sunday. changed our lives. because there were people who were willing to make great sacrifice so that we could confront injustice. not tolerate it. they didn't tolerate it. so now let's fast forward. this is a depiction, a true and accurate depiction, i believe, of what i have seen televised and of what happened at our southern border. if you didn't have to sit in the back of the bus, if you didn't have to step off the sidewalk to let others pass, if you never had a cross burned, i say in my honor, but burned in your yard, you may not see what i see. you may see agents doing their job trying to make sure that people who are invading our country are prevented from invading our country. this is what you may see. but i believe people of good will, regardless of hue, when people of good will see this, people of good will of the opinion that this is an injustice. i don't believe that people of good will can see this and never have experienced what i've experienced and seen these other representations, i don't believe that people of good will can see a means by which we can justify this kind of behavior. this is behavior that we cannot tolerate in a country that pledges allegiance to liberty and justice for all. you can't tolerate this in a country that requires in some places, requires respect for the flag. i believe that you can respect the flag if you choose to. but there are some places in the country where people want to require, maybe i should say, want to require you to respect the flag. i believe you respect the flag because you respect what it stands for. i say the pledge of allegiance. you cannot tag me as a flag burner. but i respect those who want to burn it and you've got every right to do so. i'll protect your right to burn it. but i'm not a flag burner. i believe in the country, what it stands for, the ideals of this country. and if you believe in the ideals and liberty and justice for all, not all who were born here, by the way, but all. regardless of your race, creed, color, place or origin. this is what this country stands for. and if you stand for this, there's no way you can tolerate this. if you stand for we the people, if you stand for a more perfect union, you can't tolerate this. it can't just be another thing that happens and let's go on with our lives. i'm not a person who believes that we should simply live and let live. i'm not a live and let live-er. live and let live to me, i'll live my life, you live your life, i'm not going to get in your way and don't you get in my way. that's not my philosophy. i believe in live and help live. if i see someone in harm's way, i believe i've got a duty, a moral obligation, a moral imperative to do what i can to help that person in harm's way. these persons are in harm's way. we have a moral imperative to help these persons. that's why i'm presenting this resolution. part of the moral imperative. and to be very honest with you, i hope that every member will vote for it. i hope that the leadership will allow it to come to the floor. but to be very honest, to be totally, completely, absolutely honest, if no one votes for it, i'm going to present it. i have a responsibility, and i'm going to live up to my responsibility. i didn't come here to just get along so that i could move along. so we've got a moral imperative to be helpful. let me expound upon this imperative for just a second or two. there's something called t.p.s. temporary protected status. t.p.s. has been accorded haitians. who are residents in the country prior to a certain date. t.p.s. means that we won't send them back to haiti because we have concluded that it would not be safe for them to go back to haiti. so we're not sending them back. that's t.p.s. except if you're at the southern border. except if you're at the southern border and you're trying to get into this country. then we send you back. and we do so under another section of the law. but i have to ask myself, how can we rationalize saying that it's ok to send them back, these persons, whom we already have said that other persons from the same country deserve temporary protection? the temporary protected status? and then you have to ask yourself about these people. where are they from? where did they get -- come just before getting here? where did they come from? my guess is they didn't swim across the gulf of mexico a week or two before. now, the facts are that they didn't and many of them have been living in places south of the border for years. some more than 10 years. so we decide that persons who are protected with t.p.s., not these persons, but who are going to go to a country where persons are not going to be sent because it's not safe to send them there, we decide that's where we're going to send these people who haven't been there in 10 years. not these specific people but haitians. who are out there among the throngs of people. out there among the throngs under the bridge at the southern border. we decided we're going to send them to haiti. i was at a hearing recently with the experts, the people who know. my question was, when we send people to haiti, who haven't been there in a decade, what do we give them? what kind of help do we give them? here's what he give them. a cell phone and some money. not a lot of money. at the time there was no real answer as to how much. my guess is not a lot. and by the way this doesn't just happen to haitians. this sending back. this is jose escobar who lives in my district, he went to report to the authorities with his wife and child. they took him from his wife and his child with $20 in his pocket and sent him to el salvador. he hasn't been to el salvador in 15 years. he came here by virtue of a desire to escape harm's way and his mother received t.p.s., brought him here as a child, about 15 years of age. but he didn't get t.p.s. some mixup in the paperwork. so they've been trying for years to right the wrong in terms of the mixup in paperwork. it took two years to bring mr.est kor bar home -- mr. escobar home. but my staff and i worked for two years and i went to haiti myself -- excuse me, el sal var -- el salvador myself multiple times and we brought mr. escobar home. i'm not giving up on the escobars of the world and i'm not giving upen these persons. i don't know them but i have a moral obligation to make sure that an injustice is not tolerated. now let's talk about one additional thing. i suppose i could leave this up. maybe this person has done something wrong. i can't see why we would have this, what appears to be the rein of the horse moving in his direction. but here's what's interesting. in all of the shots that i saw, the reins were always on the side where the people were. the reins weren't off on this side. they were on the side where the people were. if you want to make the argument that they were not using reins as lashes, you can. but i find it highly coincidental, too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence, that the reins are always on the side with the people. i think i'll leave it. moments in time. moments in time that can impact the rest of time. tolerate this and you're not seeing the last of it. that's why i believe that we in this house should take up a resolution that condemns the actions, i'm not condemning the person, i'm condemning what the person is doing. he's entitled to due process. but in the court of public opinion and based on what my eyes' -- my eyes see, this behavior shouldn't be tolerated. someone said, you need to hear his side of the story. i don't mind hearing his side of the story but i also understand what i see. and you can explain anything away in today's culture and today's time with the mindset that we have in this country. you can explain anything away. anything. but i believe my eyes. you don't have to pleef yours. i believe my eyes. this is wrong. this is an injustice. not something this house should tolerate. so i'm going to, in fact, i have already sent the letter, i believe, as i was leaving my office, i asked my staff to send it, to leadership, asking that the resolution be heard. it is not a privileged resolution. for those who don't know, a privileged resolution is one that does not require the consent of leadership to be brought to the floor for a vote. this is not a pri ledged resolution. so we have to have the consent. it's no credit that i'm making the request. i have great respect for all of the leadership in this congress on both sides of the aisle. but i want to let people know that i'm going to ask that the resolution be voted on. it's very simple. it's not difficult to comprehend. there is nothing -- it's very pragmatic in my mind's eye. i want it to be brought to the floor. and i want people to know that we who represent the people of this country, we who represent the people of this country, will not tolerate this kind of behavior. and i believe that if we do so, we will prevent many other persons from having to suffer the same kind of injustice. i think we have a moral imperative to bring this to the floor. and i will close with this. c.a. kinly shared these words i will paraphrase. he reminds us that harder yet may be the fight. right may often yield to might. wickedness high may seem to reign and satan's calls may seem to gain. but there is a god that rules above. with the hand of power and a heart of love. and when i'm right then god are help me fight. harder yet may be the fight. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. well, congress is back. and what a mess we have here on our hands. make no mistake. our country was facing numerous crises when we all left here for the august district work period. now it's only gotten worse. because of the backwards biden policies, we have a number of crises. unprecedented crises like our country has never faced all at one time. we have an economic crisis where jobs remain stalled and consumer prices continue to soar at their highest rate in 40 years. we have a border crisis, everybody can see that. it's impossible to overstate what a disaster it's become. we all these horrific videos showing over 10,000 illegal migrants being housed under a bridge in the hot texas sun. in august alone, over 208,000 illegal aliens were encountered at our border by our law enforcement. what's left of it. the border patrol, customs agents. border security's overwhelmed and they can't do the job that they are hired to do. we have a national security crisis. on friday, tragically, we learned that president biden's disastrous afghanistan exit was topped off by a drone strike that killed 10 civilians, including seven children. and zero terrorists. after nearly two months of district work away from washington, instead of coming back here early to deal with all these unprecedented crises, the democrat leadership waited. now here we are. what do they have for us now? what do they have on the dock toat handle these crises? we have a bill to legalize abortion on demand until birth. we have a bill to spend another $3.5 trillion. and they are pushing one of the largest tax increases in our nation's history. their answer, their answer for the american people, their answer to us, their answer to stalled jobs and rising inflation and a humanitarian crisis and a foreign policy crisis and all the rest is more abortion, trillions more in spending, and more tax hikes. this is not what was advertised. this is not what the american people want or need. you'll hear a lot tonight about the democrats' abortion on demand until birth legislation. we are talking about it tonight. my colleagues will be joining me here tonight. many will speak to this issue because it's one of the darkest, most brazen, most extreme bills ever brought to this floor. it would legalize on-demand abortion until birth. it would remove nearly all pro-life protections for the unborn. and it would abolish laws that prevent even late-term abortion. it is barbaric. and it must be stopped. i am so fortunate to be joined tonight by so many colleagues who share our concerns about this to discuss all these monstrous proposals and these terrible disasters that we are face being and to offer our competing vision for the future of this country. mr. speaker, with that i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, two minutes. mr. grothman: thank you. first of all i wand to respond a little bit to the statement made prior to the gentleman from louisiana. i think maybe some of the public was misled into believing that people -- the haitians crossing our southern border are coming here from hate yea. they are -- haiti. they are living adequately in brazil and chile even not here out of necessity. they are coming here because of a change in policy in special immigration status instituted by the biden administration. which as expected has resulted in haitians coming here from other countries than chile. now, tonight there are many issues that should be debated. we have the crisis at the border. we have the still crisis in afghanistan. we have more mundane inflation here at home. we have the racial hatred trying to be incited by the majority party. but in the midst of all these other issues, they have decided on friday over 220 of them, planning to vote on something called the women's health protection act. i would argue this is -- i haven't seen a more morally reprehensible piece of legislation in all my time of public life this. legislation will legalize abortion up to the date of birth. so you understand right now that puts -- will put us as one of seven countries worldwide who are in that ballpark. and only three other countries would have a bill so extreme. red china, north korea, and vietnam. all countries in the recent past and things have turned around a little in china. countries that proudly shut down religion and in particular christian it. -- christianity. so there we are. are you proud? united states, north korea, north vietnam, red china. this bill will legalize abortion up to the date of birth. unbelievable. you have to realize in this country throughout most of our history, abortion was illegal. abortion was illegal even though we didn't have ultrasounds. and it wasn't so obvious how horrific it is. so what do we respond to about 50 years of ultrasounds in this country? we look at those ultrasounds and we send people to congress who say let's kill those children. i also want to point out there are some moderating bills around the various states which were designed to at least give the people some ability to back away from some of these horrific abortions. when i was in the state legislature, i authored a bill, it was a 24-hour waiting period bill. i heard talk to plenty of women hoe were bullied into abortions by boyfriends and parents and regretted it. after -- we passed a 24-hour waiting period bill. after they showed up at the abortionist, they looked at the literature they received. looked at the ultrasounds and turned around. there is some evidence that because of that bill about one in seven women changed their mind and would not return for the second appointment. but apparently that was too much for the majority party. we cannot give women 24-hour waiting period. we have to have that abortion soon after they enter the clinic. the next thing that intrigues me is some states have gone after sex selective abortion. perhaps since the majority party wants to invite people from all over the world here, they like the cultural change in which some people view around the world, view a baby girl as somewhat less desirable than a baby boy. therefore they want to kill that baby girl. of course here in the united states we are offended by such a thing. states passed bills saying we are not going to have sex selected abortions. apparently it's been tied weigh in, the majority feels, time to weigh in into an area which is traditionally been the purview of the states and say no. no, we can't have states is with such a lawvment we have to go back to the days which you would come and do the ultrasound and says sai it looks like a little girl. better get rid of this one right away. that's apparently what the majority party wants to make legal. i want the american people to wake up. we need a more reawakening in this country. wake up and realize the majority of the house of representatives on this friday is going to stand up and say abortion is legal virtually until birth. they are going to say it is wrong for any state to say a 24-hour period. it is wrong to say that we want to stop the sex selective abortions. wake up, america. we are in the middle of a moral free fall. thank you. mr. johnson: it is time to wake up. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, equally passionate. mr. kelly. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman from louisiana. mr. speaker, tonight we are going to be talking about the leading causes of death in the united states. i just want to go over this because i think sometimes we become disillusioned with what is actually happening. the national center for health statistics, centers for disease control and prevention reports on the leading causes of death in the united states but does not include abortion among their list of causes of death. here is an accurate representation of the leading causes of death for 2019 which includes the number one cause of death, that is abortion. also deaths due to covid in 2021 are included for compareson. start off with suicide. intentional self-harm. 47,511 americans. influenza and pneumonia, 49k.783 americans died. kidney disease, 51,665 died from that. diabetes, 87,647. alzheimer's disease, 121,499 deaths. stroke, 150,005 death, chronic lower respiratory. 156k.1. deaths. accidents, 172,040 deaths. cancer, 599,601. covid, 656,488. that's 18 months total. heart disease, 659,041. we all know about these deaths because you cannot watch tv or listen to any news when you are not constantly hearing about what people in america are dying from because it is a crisis for us. abortion, 849,000. all the data for one year, 2019, except for covid. deaths in the united states of america from covid reached 528,600 at the one-year mark. march 2020 to march 2021. the entire 18-month death toll included in the comparison above. more unborn babies die daily from abortion in the united states of america than born children and adults from the covid pandemic. we are asked to wear a mask. we are asked to social distancing. we are asked to self-quarantine. but we aren't asked is to address death by decision. abortions. i would like to suggest that not only all members of this congress but the 330 million americans that we represent, if they have the opportunity to do it, call their parents and ask -- thank them for being pro-life. how can we possibly be debating on this floor the destruction of life by a decision, not from a disease, but from a decision. 849,000 souls cry out to us. they cannot defend themselves, but we can defend them. we will pass a law -- it will get passed here on this floor. people stay, you don't understand, you know what, i am really not for abortion, it's not my personal preference, but gosh darn it, it's what the supreme court issued. i tell all those members you have a voting card that is actually your personal preference. and your decision. please do not try to fool the american people about what is taking place right here in this house, the people's house, and say that somehow your personal preference would not be to see all these children aborted. but there is nothing you can do about it. yes, there is. vote the right way. turn this down. abortion right up until birth? are you kidding me? how in the world could we ever talk about ourselves as being a judeo-christian moral country when we do things like this. mr. speaker, i'm going to yield back, but i just hope that america wakes up and looks at what's taking place right now and says, not on our watch. not ever on our watch. not at this time or any time. the greatest country in the world, the greatest nation in the world, the greatest protector of freedom and liberty, cannot sit back and blindly accept what's happening in our country. thank you so much. i yield back. # >> i always appreciate mr. kelly's conviction, i yield two minutes to mr. ba bit. mr. ba bit: i thank my friend and neighbor from louisiana, mr. i rise in opposition to the women's health protection act of 2021. the goafl this bill is not to protect the health of women but rather to remove all barriers standing in the way of murdering millions of innocent babies. this deceptively named legislation would be more accurately entitled the abortion on demand until birth act. once again, the democrat party has pathetically caved to the demands of the far left. this bill will not only legalize abortion on demand for any reason, it will make it available at any time during the pregnancy. by nullifying state regulations, this radical bill will eliminate any prohibitions on sex selection abortions, late-term abortions, and abortions based on a down syndrome or other genetic diagnosis. the democrats know that their pro-abortion agenda does not align with the views of most americans. they know that when given a choice, more than 75% of americans support some limitations on abortion. and knowing this, it's too risky for them to leave the choice to the people and to the state legislatures that represent them. instead, democrats vote to impose their will at all costs. we cannot, and i will not, remain silent while democrat place abhorrent political games with the lives of our very most vulnerable citizens. i will never stop fighting to protect the unborn and stand firm in my opposition to this heinous legislation. thank you and i yield back. mr. johnson: thank you for that stand, my friend. mr. speakerrer i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. another strong voice on the issue. mrs. walorski: i thank my friend and, mr. speaker, this week the house is considering radical legislation that would unravel fundamental human rights and obliterate pro-life laws that are across our nation. the democrats' effort to advance this abortion on demand piece of legislation across the nation could be considered the most consequence cial legislation of my lifetime. much has changed since the supreme court decided roe v. wade in 1973. four decades later, our medical capabilities and understanding is far better. and with incredible advancements in modern sonograms and imaging there can be no doubt that a child in a womb is a living person deserving of life. yet in this moment, we're about to embark on one of the biggest setbacks in our nation's history. right now, this very moment, as it ticks by, lives are on the line. as every second goes by. some of this bill's supporters like to call pro-life americans and our convictions extreme. let me tell you in this house about extreme. i've seen extreme and i'm going to tell you about extreme. at home, in indiana, i saw an extreme abortionist, i saw what an extreme abortionist can do in one decade. in several states that happened to be on the abortion train. it's sickening beyond words what dr. ulrich george klopfer did as he provided abortions in indiana for decades. when the died in 2019, his family found the medically preserved remains of 2,411 children in formaldehyde bottles, lining the walls in his garage. that's nearly 2,500 human beings. law enforcement officials believe the remains were gathered from his so-called medical practices in indiana between 2000 and 2003. dr. klopfer had countless victim, both unborn babies and mohrs and represents a grotesque violation of human dignity. this american society should not and cannot tolerate that. that's extreme. the abortionist revealed a ka louse disregard for life. if that isn't extreme, ladies and gentlemen, i don't know what is. human life is precious. and every human life, every person, deserves that dignity we're fighting for tonight. we have an obligation to the next generation to oppose this extreme anti-life effort and to uphold the sanctity of life in this nation. i'm proud to join with millions of pro life americans to oppose abortion on demand and to defend the right to life. science is on our side. more importantly, ladies and gentlemen, the truth is on our side. our enduring commitment to life will pro prevail. i thank the gentleman. i yield back. mr. johnson: thank you for that compelling testimony. this legislation would formalize, legalize, the very industry that allowed that mohnser to continue his practices in indiana and elsewhere. i'm delighted to yield two minutes to the gentleman, a former pastor and great lawmaker, mr. hies of georgia. -- mr. hice of georgia. mr. hice: we're here to defend the sanctity of human life something that once again is under attack in this house. in response to the left's adamant desire for abortion legislation, speaker pelosi is demanding that we vote on h.r. 3755 to allow abortion at any time during a pregnancy. the left wants to, in addition, strip away the rights of states to protect the lives of unborn children. this is abortion on demand. and quite frankly, the democrats don't care if the unborn child has a fully developed heart, they don't care if it has arms or loargs fingers or toes, they don't care if it feels pain. they want abortion period and want to finance it with your tax dollars. time and time again the democrats in congress stand in the way of those of us trying to protect the lives of those who cannot protect themselves. eliminating innocent human life is despicable. it is outright evil. and i for one am tired of the left continually sacrificing the lives of the unborn on the altar of their progressive ideals. we cannot give up this fight. we cannot turn a blind eye. we must defend the sanctity of life and the urn born. never, and i mean never, will we falter in this duty. i stand in strong opposition along with my colleagues to h.r. 3755. life is sacred. it's a fundamental and divine right that is gifted to every single human being. and we will always stand against the abortion industry and fight. life, the right to life, is something that only god almighty gives. and it's something that our constitution guarantees. so help us god. i yield back. mr. johnson: thank you so much for that, my brother. mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield a minute and a half to one of the great pro life champions in the country, mrs. hartzler of missouri. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3755, the supposed women's health protection act, but the underlying bill would be more aptly titled the women's and -- the women and babies' health evisceration act as it serves to get rid of laws that protect women and babies from procedures. this bill will allow health care providers to perform an abortion on anyone for any reason at any time. up until birth. by erasing state parental consent protections, informed consent laws and dangerous take-home chemical abortion prohibitions this bill would allow a 16-year-old pregnant minor to show up at an abortion clinic and without knowing how far along she is, or any of the risks associated with an abortion procedure, be sent home to perform a chemical abortion on herself without medical supervision and without her parents' awareness. abortion on anyone. this bill also invalidates state anti-discrimination laws which would allow babies to be aborted solely because of unwanted characteristics such as their race, their sex or disability. abortion for anyone reason. by prohibiting laws that restrict late-term abortions this bill will allow a by by to be aborted up until birth. as gestational age is the strongest risk factor for abortion related mortality this bill marks the most egregious abortion policy ever considered in congress. in fact, a woman seeking abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester at 21 weeks or more. she's 91 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester. abortion at any time. this bill is bad for women. and it's bad for babies. directly placing both in harm's way. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this appalling measure. thank you and i yield back. mr. johnson: thank you, mrs. hartzler, for your leadership on all these things. i'm happy to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from kansas, mr. la turner. mr. laturner: i rise in strong opposition to the women's health protection act or more accurately the abortion on demand until birth act. this legislation imposes on demand abortions until birth. meaning anyone can have an abortion for any reason up until the day the baby is born. republicans and as hard as it is to believe now, at one point even some democrats, have been fighting for pro life protections for decades. this bill removes nearly all protections for the unborn at the state and federal level and allows babies to be aborted just based on the baby's sex, race, and disability. since day one of the biden administration, democrats have made it their goal to push a radical, pro choice agenda and this bill is no exception. for months, democrats have been encouraging taxpayer funded abortions in the united states and even going as far as limiting health care access to babies that survive abortions. my colleagues and i standing up here tonight are not the only ones who agree that this bill is wrong for our country. the democrats' radical agenda is extremely out of touch with the majority of kansans in my district. in fact, over 80% of americans agree that abortion should be illegal in the third trimester. i am proud to be a member of the pro life caucus where we are pushing back to help ensure every baby is protected under the law and to be a voice for the millions of pro life americans who will not rest until the sanctity of life is protected. as my democrat colleagues continue to advance their radical and immoral pro choice agenda, my constituents can be assured that i will always unapologetically defend the most vulnerable among us. the unborn. and may god help us all in this effort. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman so much. i'm happy to yield 90 seconds to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. miller, one of the most compassionate voices in the congress. mrs. miller: thank you. thank you to my friend and colleague, congressman johnson, for hosting tonight's special order. i can attest that the most sacred gift we have is our ability to create life. children are the greatest resource of our nation. it doesn't matter if the unborn child has a fully developed heart, arm, legs, fingers, toes, or receptors. at any time in a preg -- or pain receptors. at any time in pregnancy even up until birth, dems want to allow abortions and plan to finance it with your tax dollars. it's a fact when it's legal and free it's an inducement to women who find themselves in a hard spot to have an abortion. i remember seeing the sonogram of my first child and all six of my children after that. a sonogram is a window to the womb. the democrats are anti-informed choice. they want to withhold the truth from the pregnant woman by withholding sono tkpwrafps. i have season to people and women changed their minds. hearing the heartbeat and my first daughter. the party said humanity of unborn child. the right to light. house republicans sort a culture that defends lives and protects the children in the womb. and we want to protect the women from making the worst decision of their life. this isn't about protecting

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Louisiana , Alabama , Afghanistan , Amarillo , Texas , Minnesota , China , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Syria , New Mexico , Russia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , West Virginia , Mexico , New York , , Georgia , Japan , Polk County , Florida , North Carolina , Iran , Washington , El Salvador , Kentucky , Vietnam , Republic Of , Rhode Island , Illinois , Indiana , Wisconsin , Togo , Canada , Oregon , Haiti , Guam , Michigan , Puerto Rico , Iraq , Tennessee , South Dakota , Nebraska , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Pennsylvania , North Korea , Chile , Ohio , Kansas , Cyprus , Utah , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , New Mexicans , Afghan , Iraqi , Haitians , Serb , Japanese , American , Haitian , Adam Smith , Ulrich George , Jose Escobar , John Heiden , John Lewis , Smith Schmidt , Jackson Lee , Los Alamos , Leger Fernandez ,