On that I demand 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 XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No…

I am concerned that adoption of this amendment would create a major recruiting platform for terrorists and create security risks. The Biden administration is opposed to this amendment. I oppose this amendment, and I urge all of my…

The amendment allows some of the most hardened terrorists in U.S. custody a platform to publicly broadcast their message. Letting these vicious terrorists know there is a public audience for their hate will do far more harm than good. It…

It is my understanding that the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction is opposed. Therefore, I must be opposed. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

This is a fine piece of legislation in a stand-alone fashion. In fact, I voted for the gentleman's stand-alone bill. I think what he is trying to accomplish is admirable and should be accomplished, but not in the National Defense…

As I have made clear, I feel very strongly that this is a really strong, bipartisan bill. I urge all Members of the House to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Having said that, I look forward to hearing from the Department and the Independent Review Commission about this new set of recommendations to better address sexual assault in the military.

It cuts the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

It constitutes a cut of over $4 billion in real dollars.

This budget is woefully inadequate. It doesn't keep pace with China. It doesn't even keep pace with inflation.

The President's defense budget is woefully inadequate. It falls far short of providing our warfighters the resources they need to carry out their mission.

The President's top line for defense is forcing the Army alone to slash funding by nearly $4 billion.

we can't keep deferring taking action on keeping pace with China, because it's going to get us in a bad situation.

There is no guarantee the United States would win a future conflict with China.

this budget is, basically, level funding, just a little bit of a dip, it's irresponsible in the long term.

Let me start by saying that this argument that we have to get rid of the AUMF is just ridiculous. We pass the National Defense Authorization Act every year. We have passed it every year for 60 consecutive years. If we don't want to…

This budget is throwing the shipbuilding industrial base further into disarray.

the fact is these UFRs [unfunded requirements] are necessary and we need to fund them.

While this administration dithers, China is rapidly growing and modernizing its navy.

why are you canceling the program that our best military minds on deterrence tell us that we need to deter Russia and China?

I refuse to support it. We should be expanding and modernizing our naval capabilities as called for by the last administration.

I just don't know why we would agree with anything that would reduce the force structure and induce a near-term risk with China.

this budget doesn't get you there.

the nonpartisan--the bipartisan Commission on National Security Defense recommended a 3 to 5 percent increase in defense spending each year over inflation for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, I was being naive. Rather than keeping pace with the threat from China, the President's budget recommendation would let us lap them--let them lap us.