[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 163 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H4564-H4576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3755, WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT 
  OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4350, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
   H.R. 5305, EXTENDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND DELIVERING EMERGENCY 
                 ASSISTANCE ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 667

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3755) to 
     protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue 
     or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's 
     ability to provide abortion services. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4350) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year, and for other

[[Page H4565]]

     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-13, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or 
     their respective designees; (2) the further amendments 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; (3) the amendments 
     en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution; and (4) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  After debate pursuant to section 2 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 2 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 5.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5305) making 
     continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, September 24, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, July 27, 2021, or 
     September 21, 2021, in the form as so offered, on which the 
     yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.
       Sec. 8. (a) Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX or section 
     7 of House Resolution 555, further proceedings on a vote by 
     the yeas and nays on the question of adoption of a motion 
     that the House suspend the rules offered on the legislative 
     day of July 26, 2021, or July 27, 2021, may continue to be 
     postponed through the legislative day of October 1, 2021.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of 
     adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered 
     on the legislative day of September 21, 2021 may be postponed 
     through the legislative day of October 1, 2021.
       Sec. 9.  House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as 
     most recently amended by House Resolution 555, agreed to July 
     27, 2021), is amended by striking ``September 22, 2021'' each 
     place it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``October 
     27, 2021''.
       Sec. 10.  The ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion 
     that the House suspend the rules and pass S. 2382 is vacated 
     to the end that the motion be considered as withdrawn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1615

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 667, providing for consideration of 
three measures.
  First, H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, under a closed 
rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman 
Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4350, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule. The rule 
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Smith, provides 1 
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and 
provides one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order 476 
amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5305, the 
Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, 
under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to 
en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through 
September 24. Requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills may 
be postponed through October 1.
  Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, 
and same day authority to October 27 and provides that the ordering of 
the yeas and nays on the motion that the House suspend the rules and 
pass S. 2382 is vacated.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule, H.R. 
4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022; H.R. 
5305, the continuing resolution; and H.R. 3755, the Women's Health 
Protection Act.
  I want to start by recognizing the contributions of the North 
Carolinians and all American servicemembers who served in Afghanistan 
over the past 20 years. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.
  It is in honor of these American heroes that I am proud to support 
the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill 
invests in our servicemembers and their families and ensures that the 
United States is ready to confront future threats to our Nation.
  This NDAA provides our men and women in uniform with a 2.7 percent 
pay increase; makes critical changes to how the military addresses 
sexual assault; and improves TRICARE coverage and benefits, including 
by removing cost sharing for contraceptive coverage.
  I am grateful that three of my amendments were made in order. Two of 
these amendments aim to support military women and families by 
requiring reports on access to menstrual products and accommodations 
and on potential TRICARE coverage of preconception and prenatal genetic 
carrier screening tests.
  My other amendment expands the definition of PFAS to better align 
with the current science. This change will help keep our servicemembers 
and all Americans safe from toxic chemicals.

[[Page H4566]]

  In addition to supporting our military personnel, this legislation 
supports American innovation through a 32 percent increase in defense-
wide research, development, testing, and evaluation. It also ensures 
that our HBCUs and other minority institutions are more able to 
contribute to DOD research and development.
  Finally, this bill continues our commitment to supporting our Afghan 
allies by authorizing $500 million for the Department of Defense to 
support the relocation of at-risk Afghans.
  The continuing resolution included in this rule also supports efforts 
to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan. Afghans arriving to the U.S. 
or awaiting processing overseas need medical care, food, housing, and 
other assistance. This funding will ensure the government agencies 
involved in the resettlement process have the capacity necessary to 
help our Afghan allies build new lives in safety in the United States.
  In addition, the continuing resolution ensures that our government 
remains funded, raises the debt ceiling, and provides relief to areas 
devastated by Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters.
  Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans. We all benefit when our 
democracy and economy are healthy, and we all suffer when our country 
is in crisis.
  Every Member in this body was elected to represent our fellow 
Americans. It would be a dishonor to the trust they bestowed upon us if 
we let the government shut down or allow the country to default on the 
full faith and credit of the United States.
  This CR will provide much-needed relief to communities devastated by 
recent hurricanes and other disasters like the California wildfires.
  Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and many Americans still have 
limited access to fresh water and electricity. Additional delays in 
relief could be the difference between life and death.
  Lastly, this rule includes the Women's Health Protection Act, which 
safeguards reproductive freedom for people across this country.
  Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. With 
this bill, the House is stepping in following the Supreme Court's 
failure to uphold decades of American jurisprudence.
  This bill affirms what our Constitution and international human 
rights bodies have long upheld: that access to reproductive care is 
central to health and equality. A woman living in Texas should have the 
same access to care as a woman living in California.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Ross), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks in a positive way by 
discussing H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2022. I am glad that this bill has not been poisoned by all the 
partisanship that has plagued the House for the past year, and that, as 
they have done for the past 61 years, the House Armed Services 
Committee came together and produced a bill that both Republicans and 
Democrats can support. We saw this in the overwhelming 57-2 vote to 
report the bill out of committee.
  This outcome wasn't always assured, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, 
President Biden proposed a defense budget number that was woefully 
inadequate for America's defense needs. At a time when we are facing 
new and emerging threats around the globe, from the Middle East, to 
Afghanistan, to the South China Sea, we cannot afford to underfund our 
national defense.
  Chronic underfunding of national defense was a hallmark of the Obama-
Biden administration, and it appears that President Biden himself is 
determined to continue down that path. Fortunately, both the House and 
Senate Armed Services Committees disagreed, and the House now has 
before it a bill that fully funds our defense needs for the coming 
fiscal year.
  The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the 
U.S. Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and 
development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military 
will be well-prepared to meet any new and emerging challenges in the 
coming years. And it provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay 
raise.
  And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions 
designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled 
withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about the 
decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that 
occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that 
they will get them.
  And while I do not support every provision in the NDAA, I want to 
applaud the good work of the House Armed Services Committee. I think 
their process should serve as a model for all committees in the House. 
In an age when so much legislation is produced by one party behind 
closed doors in leadership offices, the committee did the hard work and 
produced a bill that both parties can support. Indeed, it is truly 
refreshing to be considering this bill today, and I want to commend 
Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member   Mike Rogers for their good 
work and bipartisan working relationship.
  Unfortunately, the next measure I will discuss isn't nearly so 
positive. This bill is a continuing resolution to fund the government 
through December 3, 2021. But rather than advancing a clean, negotiated 
CR, the majority is using the bill as a vehicle to push through a 
suspension of the national debt limit. This is a nonstarter with 
Republicans, as the majority well knows and, as such, I expect all 
Republicans will oppose it.
  Since taking control of the Presidency and the Senate in January, the 
majority has been on a spending spree unlike any other in our history. 
Earlier this year, the Democrats rammed through a partisan $1.9 
trillion reconciliation bill, ostensibly about COVID relief, but really 
about pushing forward a laundry list of progressive policies.
  Last week, 13 authorizing committees met on another partisan 
reconciliation bill, this one larded up with a whopping $3.5 trillion 
in progressive policies like those found in the Green New Deal. And 
sadly, even that wasn't enough for some committees, who, according to 
the CBO, spent more than double what the budget resolution told them 
to. These bloated spending measures come on top of normal Federal 
spending and on top of the large bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages 
passed last year.
  The last suspension of the debt limit covered all the spending that 
was done in the past, along with the first 9 months of the Biden 
administration. But since then, the majority has opened the national 
checkbook. They have done so with only Democratic votes. That is their 
prerogative. After all, they control the White House, the House of 
Representatives, and the Senate.
  But since the majority is spending this money over Republican 
objections, and without Republican cooperation, it is up to the 
majority to raise the debt limit. They should not expect Republican 
votes to help them cover their out-of-control spending.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad state of affairs that what should be a 
relatively simple measure to fund the government is being used in this 
manner. I urge my friends across the aisle to rethink this plan, and I 
hope they will come to their senses before government funding runs out 
nine days from now.
  Our last bill covered by this rule is somehow even more partisan and 
controversial than the CR. This is H.R. 3755, which the majority is 
pitching as a simple codification of the Supreme Court decision of Roe 
v. Wade. In reality, this measure goes far beyond that. It is the 
greatest threat to the protection of innocent, unborn life that we have 
seen in over 50 years.
  The bill before us preempts any State law that seeks to protect life, 
including policies that those who identify as pro-choice support. 
Instead, every single State would be required to allow abortion on 
demand at any time up to the point of birth.
  No more would States be able to protect conscience rights; no more 
would they be able to ban barbaric procedures like dismemberment 
abortions; and no more would they be able to prevent abortions 
targeting fetuses with Down

[[Page H4567]]

Syndrome, which 70 percent of the American people oppose.
  I would call on all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to reject 
this measure.
  Protecting the unborn has always been one of my highest priorities as 
a Member of Congress. We need only to look at the Declaration of 
Independence for a reminder that the right to life is one of those 
inalienable rights endowed upon all of us, even unborn children, by our 
Creator. I urge this House to remember those words, remember the 
unborn, and to reject this egregious attack on life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and two of the underlying 
bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
its underlying legislation. Specifically, I want to highlight H.R. 
3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.
  The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg just a year ago removed the last 
major impediment to an all-out assault by conservative extremists on 
the freedom of American women to make their own reproductive choices. 
With the culmination of a decades-long campaign to pack the Supreme 
Court with far-right abortion foes, championed by The Federalist 
Society and Mitch McConnell, we have seen a tidal wave of legislation 
and court cases designed to overturn the constitutional protections 
outlined in Roe v. Wade.
  Those efforts have included S.B. 8, the Texas bill outlawing abortion 
after 6 weeks and offering a bounty to vigilantes who seek to enforce 
that ban; the Supreme Court's refusal to block implementation of the 
Texas law; and the Court's scheduling of a December argument in a case 
that seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade. They all demonstrate a clear and 
present threat to women's reproductive rights in this country.
  The decision to have, or not to have, a child is deeply personal and 
may profoundly impact a woman's mental, physical, and financial health 
and, in some instances, her very life. Women should have the freedom to 
make personal healthcare decisions with those they love and the doctors 
they trust, free from undue State interference and invasion of the 
woman's privacy.
  With increasing attacks on women's reproductive freedom, we are once 
again seeing the urgent need for Federal legislation to codify Roe v. 
Wade. To ensure that Roe's protections remain, we must absolutely pass 
the Women's Health Protection Act and protect a woman's freedom to 
choose a safe and legal abortion, no matter where she lives.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4828, the Border Security for 
America Act, for immediate consideration.
  The last couple of days have made it plainly obvious that the Federal 
Government has lost control of our southern border. More than 15,000 
migrants have set up camp under the Del Rio International Bridge. 
Customs and Border Patrol have been completely overwhelmed, to the 
point that Texas Governor Abbott had to take things into his own hands 
and deploy both the National Guard and Texas Rangers to stop the flow.
  Rather than allowing the President to simply fiddle, we must do 
something in Congress to address this unprecedented crisis. H.R. 4828 
will address the ongoing crisis in three ways. It would require the 
immediate resumption of construction of the wall at the southern 
border; it would provide for new investments in technology; and it 
would ensure an appropriate level of Customs and Border Protection 
officers to fulfill CBP's mandate at all ports of entry and along the 
border.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to further 
explain the amendment.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question. There is absolutely no denying that there is a crisis at our 
southern border.
  I spent Saturday in Del Rio, Texas, where I would invite everyone in 
this House to go take a look for themselves at what I saw, nearly 
15,000 people crammed under the bridge in unsafe, shanty-like 
structures after bum-rushing our border and getting into this country 
illegally. Meanwhile, the port of entry is closed, just a hundred yards 
from this bridge.
  Most of these people are from the age of 18 to 35, but I spoke with 
many children, families, and even women who were expecting within the 
next day, multiple of whom have given birth this past week, all while 
suffering the sweltering heat, 100 degrees during that day.
  You cannot fathom the horrific conditions--the rape, the assault, the 
crime, the drugs--right here on our border.
  I spoke to migrants who told me that the U.S. border is easier to get 
into than that of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This is 
unacceptable and is a direct result of the Biden administration's 
disastrous crisis and policy at our border.
  Just today, senior DHS officials have told us that the border is 
secure. It is not.
  I am proud to join with Ranking Member Katko and my colleagues on the 
Homeland Security Committee to offer a comprehensive border security 
solutions bill. It is time to stop playing political games with our 
security and with our immigration laws. We must return to policies that 
we know work to stem the flow of illegal immigration and regain 
operational control of our southern border.
  Enough is enough. Something must be done. I urge my Democratic 
colleagues to call this what it is, a crisis, and to stand for our 
border security.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Military.com article 
entitled ``Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low-
Income Military Families.''

                   [From Military.com, July 27, 2021]

Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low-Income Military 
                                Families

                           (By Patricia Kime)

       A House panel is weighing a $770 billion defense policy 
     bill that includes a provision to give lower-income military 
     families a basic needs allowance--a stipend that advocacy 
     groups say would relieve stress and ``food insecurity'' among 
     U.S. troops.
       The draft of the House's 2022 National Defense 
     Authorization Act released Tuesday contains a provision 
     similar to the Senate's proposal that would provide service 
     members additional money for food and other basics if their 
     household incomes do not exceed 130% of the federal poverty 
     level--which in 2021 meant $21,960 for a family of three, 
     $26,500 for a family of four, and slightly higher for even 
     larger families.
       This is the third time the proposal has been incorporated 
     into the House defense policy bill; unlike previous years, it 
     also has been included in the 2022 Senate defense bill, 
     increasing the likelihood that it will pass later this year.
       For an E-4 with several years in the military, a spouse and 
     two children, the stipend could equate to roughly $250 extra 
     a month.
       Advocates say the provision is needed as junior military 
     service members face the stresses of supporting families in 
     areas where spouse employment is low or child-care expenses 
     make it difficult to pay monthly bills.
       ``When I got to the [Defense Department], I started talking 
     about food insecurity, and I really did get a look that said 
     to me, `We really don't think we have a problem,' '' Patty 
     Barron, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Military 
     Community and Family Policy, said at an event on military and 
     veterans food insecurity Tuesday.
       The data is mixed on the extent of food insecurity among 
     military families. This year, the Defense Department's 
     Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation found that an 
     estimated 880 to 4,690 U.S. service members use the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a rate of 
     between .08% and .42% of troops. Civilian usage of SNAP, also 
     known as food stamps, is 9.6%.
       Critics note, however, that the report pulled data from 
     only two months in 2019, and the data does not include 
     numbers from 40% of states, including several with large 
     military populations such as California, Hawaii and Virginia.
       ``The reason we thought we didn't have a problem is, we 
     were looking at the low SNAP numbers, and we believe we are 
     compensating our people well, and if not, they will promote 
     out of it and get those pay raises to solve the problem,'' 
     Barron added.

[[Page H4568]]

       ``The department is much more aware of the issue now, and 
     it is one of Secretary [Lloyd] Austin's biggest priorities,'' 
     Barron said during the discussion hosted by the Center For 
     Strategic and International Studies.
       A survey released in May found that nearly 33% of more than 
     5,600 respondents at an unidentified Army installation were 
     considered marginally food insecure, meaning they faced food 
     hardship or had difficulties ensuring that their food budget 
     stretched through the end of the month.
       And according to a report from the organization MAZON: A 
     Jewish Response to Hunger, one in eight military families 
     experiences food insecurity compared with one in 10 in the 
     U.S. civilian population.
       ``The mental health of our service members is key to their 
     long-term connection to the military and the well-being of 
     their families, and given that we find service members' 
     mental health is associated with food insecurity, addressing 
     food insecurity may be one way to address [mental health 
     issues],'' said Matthew Rabbitt, an economist with the USDA 
     Economic Research Service, during the CSIS event.
       The House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee will 
     consider its portion of the 2022 National Defense 
     Authorization Act on Wednesday. The bill is expected to be 
     debated by the full committee on Sept. 1 and must be 
     reconciled with the Senate's version before it can become 
     law.
       The proposed legislation provides for a 2.7% pay raise for 
     military personnel in 2022 and a number of other benefits, 
     including an increase in parental leave for service members 
     and designated caregivers as well as foster parents, 
     expansion of the department's in-home, child-care pilot 
     program and the establishment of an advisory council to 
     support the services' Exceptional Family Member Programs.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that members of our armed services 
and their families are going hungry. I have heard about this in my home 
State of North Carolina, where there are food banks associated with 
military bases.
  I am grateful that this 2022 NDAA will provide servicemembers 
additional money for food and other basic needs. No one in America 
should go hungry, especially those serving our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's reckless and dangerous 
policies have led to a crisis on the southern border, as the illegal 
flow of drugs, weapons, and people continues to threaten American 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. 
Spartz), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to speak more about 
this crisis and solutions contained in H.R. 4828.
  Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enormous dismay 
with the situation at our southern border.
  I went to the border three times this spring and have seen firsthand 
the escalating human and national security crisis, but what I have seen 
from my colleagues going to the border this weekend is beyond any 
words.
  Our government is becoming an accomplice to human and drug 
trafficking for Mexican cartels and is completely disregarding its duty 
to protect the American people.
  I am an immigrant myself and value the contributions of immigrants to 
our country over the years, but what is happening at the border is an 
invasion of our country and complete lawlessness.
  We are not an anarchy. We are a country with the rule of law. It is 
our duty as Congress to help the State of Texas protect our Republic. 
It is becoming even more urgent in light of the Afghanistan debacle and 
increased risk for terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can consider the Border Security for America Act.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me the time. I also am most appreciative to the members of the Rules 
Committee, who have devoted an inordinate amount of time to bringing 
this legislation to the floor.
  I am also appreciative for the consideration of three amendments that 
we will have in the NDAA.
  Our first amendment, Homes for Heroes, requires the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, as well as public housing agencies, to 
improve consideration of and reporting on the status of veterans.
  Friends, outside of my office in Houston, there is an overpass. There 
are persons living under that overpass, some of whom claim to be 
veterans.
  We need to know what is happening to our veterans in this country. We 
want to make sure everybody is given equal opportunities and equal 
access to the opportunities that we have in this country. But I 
especially am concerned about the veterans because, quite frankly, it 
hurts my heart to hear someone say, ``I served my country, risked my 
life,'' and we find them sleeping under bridges. This will give us an 
opportunity to get more information on what is happening to them.
  The second amendment is the Universal Residential Loan Application. 
This amendment will require housing enterprises to include a military 
service question on the Universal Residential Loan Application in a 
prominent position on the form.
  This is done because many of our veterans are not aware of the VA 
loans that are available to them, and we want to make sure that before 
they sign that loan application, they understand that there are other 
opportunities available to them.
  We also have an amendment that will deal with our merchant mariners. 
This amendment requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
distribute a payment to the U.S. merchant marines who engaged in 
qualified service during World War II and who have not received their 
just desserts, in the sense of something positive, for something that 
they did for this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, finally, the private student loan 
borrowers amendment, I am a cosponsor of this amendment with 
Representative Alma Adams. This would extend the private student loan 
forbearance period to January 31, 2022, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as 
the rationale.
  I think these amendments are exceedingly important. They are in this 
NDAA, and I will be supporting it in large part because these 
amendments are there, as well as for other reasons that I have not been 
able to discuss today.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the crisis at the southern border is affecting 
communities across the United States, but nowhere is that more apparent 
than in those communities that are near the southern border.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony 
Gonzales), my good friend and a distinguished fellow member of the 
Appropriations Committee, to speak more about the need for the Border 
Security for America Act.
  Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the 
humanitarian and national security crisis happening as we speak in my 
district.
  The flood of migrants at the International Bridge in Del Rio has 
highlighted the vulnerabilities we have in both our immigration system 
and as a Nation. That is why I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
previous question.

  We need much-needed commonsense reforms to provide the Border Patrol 
with more advanced technology, supplemental boots on the ground, and 
additional support to secure our southern border through 
infrastructure.
  In order to prevent an event like this from happening again, there 
needs to be substantial policy changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, to the members of the Rules Committee, I 
appreciate the hard work that you have put into getting this bill to 
the floor.
  I am only going to speak about one issue in this particular NDAA, 
something that I have been working on for 10 years.
  This is a helmet that was given to me by sexual assault victims in 
our military.
  Since I started working on this issue, 200,000 soldiers, sailors, 
marines, and airmen have been sexually assaulted in

[[Page H4569]]

the military, 20,000 a year. We have spent $2 billion on programs in 
those 10 years that have yielded us nothing but more sexual assaults.
  Finally, in this very bill, we are doing what we should have done 10 
years ago. We are taking these cases out of the chain of command and 
making the decisions by those who are professionals, who are lawyers, 
who are trained, along with the investigators, so that we will have a 
situation where sexual assault victims feel like they can come forward 
and file their cases.
  I have had too many servicemembers say to me that they were ready to 
fight against the enemy that was outside the wire; they never thought 
the enemy was going to be a fellow soldier.
  I am grateful to all my Republican and Democratic colleagues who have 
recognized, finally, it is time to put their safety first.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it should be easy to agree that securing our 
southern border is vital for national security. Our next speaker will 
talk more about H.R. 4828 and the need for vital security improvements 
as part of an overall strategy to secure and protect the southern 
border.
  I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), 
the author of the bill, and the ranking Republican member on the 
Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question and in support of immediately considering legislation I 
introduced with dozens of my colleagues to address the deadly, record-
breaking crisis along the southwest border.
  Specifically, this bill, H.R. 4828, requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to secure our Nation's borders through the immediate 
renewal of the border wall project that was initiated by the previous 
administration, major investments in security technologies, and 
increased hiring of frontline Border Patrol agents and Federal law 
enforcement officers.
  The Border Security for America Act is a multifaceted solution to 
secure our borders and prioritize the safety of Americans.
  As a result of President Biden's misguided and destructive border 
security policies, there were 208,887 encounters along the southwest 
border in August 2021. That is a 317 percent increase from the previous 
year.
  August was the sixth straight month with more than 170,000 illegal 
encounters, a trend never before recorded. In a 24-hour period on 
August 1 of this year, the U.S. Border Patrol encountered over 5,900 
individuals from 33 different countries trying to cross the border.
  This is not seasonal migration from Northern Triangle countries, as 
this administration would have you believe. This is a self-inflicted 
disaster stemming from this administration's destruction of any 
semblance of border security that began on President Biden's first day.
  While many of us thought the border crisis couldn't possibly get any 
worse, just this week over 15,000 migrants illegally surged into Del 
Rio, Texas.
  According to the recently departed chief of the Border Patrol, the 
front line is rapidly losing the situational awareness required to know 
who and what is entering our homeland. Border Patrol has already 
intercepted known or suspected terrorists trying to come across the 
border this year ``at a level we have never seen before.''
  Illegal immigration is not the only threat along the border. This 
year CBP has already seized enough fentanyl at the border to kill every 
man, woman, and child in the United States seven times over. That is 
just what we caught at the border. Without adequate resources and 
personnel, fentanyl and other destructive drugs are able to flood into 
our communities all over this great Nation and poison our constituents, 
as has happened in my district in central New York.
  In addition to ensuring preparedness along the border, the Border 
Security for America Act would resume construction of the border wall 
system, requiring the hiring and training of additional officers and 
agents to maintain an active-duty presence along the southwest border--
something we don't have right now, an increased number of agricultural 
specialists, K-9 units, and support officers.
  We know these policies work and that President Biden's negligence has 
already proven dangerous to our national security. That is why this 
bill has the support of the National Border Patrol Council, which 
represents 18,000 frontline Border Patrol agents and support staff. We 
are simply trying to provide the frontline agents with what they are 
asking for.
  I often hear my friends on the other side of the aisle, whom I 
respect, accuse Republicans of complaining about problems without 
offering solutions. Well, here we are, giving you the opportunity to 
vote on a strong, commonsense solution to secure our borders and 
protect our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the security of the United States and 
to support our frontline men and women by passing this bill.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA authorizes funding for 
cybersecurity investments in people, programs, and technology. It 
directs the executive branch to establish a cyber-threat information 
collaboration environment which will facilitate the transmission, 
sharing, and analysis of cyber-threat information, which is so crucial, 
particularly at this time.
  This legislation implements key recommendations of the National 
Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by authorizing funding 
for key AI-related initiatives, including investments in the workforce, 
emerging technologies research, and support for our small business 
contractors.
  Additionally, the legislation authorizes funding to support 
biological threat reduction programs, requires a publicly available 
report on threats regarding weapons of mass destruction by China and 
Russia, and directs a report on biosecurity efforts across the 
Department of Defense, all needed and crucial investments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, and a fellow member 
of the Rules Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a member 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act 
includes a provision requiring women now to register for the Selective 
Service. We all know that men have 30 days from their 18th birthday to 
register for the Selective Service in case a draft becomes necessary. 
Of course, we also know the last draft was during the Nixon 
administration in 1972.
  We are fortunate to have an all-volunteer military force, and we know 
that our citizens unite in times of need. The Selective Service System 
has outlived its necessity.

  However, since it remains a requirement, we must not fundamentally 
change the relationship between the government and the governed by 
adding a provision to add women to the draft in this massive defense 
bill.
  A change of this magnitude requires its own vote by every Member 
representing their constituents. I supported an amendment to strike 
this language from the bill by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. 
Greene), but unfortunately the Democrats are not permitting its 
consideration on the floor.
  I think this is a mistake. I think we should be heard. I think we 
should be transparent, we should be recorded, and then let's get on 
with the business of replacing the Selective Service System.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her leadership.
  Let me make a proclamation here on the floor of the House, that when 
you have the responsibility of governing, you govern.
  The President of the United States, President Biden, who believes in 
transformational government, the House and the Senate, the House under 
the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate under the leadership of 
Chuck Schumer. You govern. Today, we are making an enforced, pointed, 
and open statement about governing.
  Let me quickly start with the NDAA, the vehicle that helps the men 
and

[[Page H4570]]

women who put on the uniform unselfishly on our behalf. I am excited 
about the increase in quality-of-life dollars, the raise in personnel 
salaries, the concern about families. I am increasingly excited about 
cyber protection, and as well that we ask the hard questions about 
Afghanistan and how we will not see the return of such. But we are not 
afraid to govern by asking those questions so that we can move forward.
  I am also excited about recognizing that the quality-of-life issues 
for our members in the military are important. The Jackson Lee 
amendments emphasize those points:
  $10 million to fight triple-negative breast cancer impacting our 
women in the United States military, particularly women of color.
  $2.5 million in PTSD. I have heard many times we give to PTSD, but it 
keeps growing and growing, and there are those in our constituency, our 
constituents who need these ongoing services. I have been working on 
this for a long time.
  To recognize that we must treat our men and women that go into the 
United States military academies fairly. Does anyone know that they 
admit people with speech disorders? Good for them. But when they 
graduate, they are not given a command. My amendment, that I hope to 
become law, will determine that you analyze all of your military 
students to make sure they have a command when they graduate.
  I am most excited about one that I will talk about quickly later.
  And then, of course, we have done so much great work with the 
momnibus to look at maternal mortality rates for military members 
traveling around the world.
  Space debris, to determine how we can remediate the risks and outline 
plans to reduce the incidence of space debris.
  To be able to ensure that we stop students from being recruited when 
they go overseas to be engaged in spy operations. That happens. And we 
are glad to have that, as well as to begin looking at renaming some of 
these bases after historic African Americans.
  Let me quickly say that amendment No. 194 should be one that we all 
come together on, tracing the history of the service of African 
Americans in the United States military, particularly in slavery, to 
recognize that they can be a vital legacy to the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will talk further about that as we 
move into the NDAA, but let me talk about my original premise of 
governing.
  The continuing appropriations is crucial, and I support the lifting 
of the debt ceiling not to spend money, but--when you have 
responsibility to govern, you govern--to pay our bills. Does anyone 
want to suggest that we should not?
  I am looking for a few good men and women on the other side of the 
aisle that will stand with us as Americans and be responsible to our 
fellow Americans, governing, so that we can ensure we have a 
supplemental food program and other aspects of it, but we have to 
govern.
  More response to COVID-19.
  And finally, it is important to give women back their rights. Roe v. 
Wade is the law of the land, and we are going to pass that legislation 
along with my anti-stalking and vigilante bill because people are 
suffering with the Texas law. It has no place in society. It is a 
violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be 
quashed, with the Roe v. Wade codification. I ask the other body to 
support us in that. I ask everyone to support the underlying bills.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Jackson), my good friend, and a distinguished member of the House 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of one of the most 
important bills that comes before Congress, the NDAA. This year's NDAA 
follows the National Defense Strategy by modernizing our military, 
providing a pay raise for servicemembers, and restoring readiness.
  This legislation will modernize our nuclear triad, supporting the 
work done at the Pantex plant in Amarillo.
  The NDAA also includes provisions that will support Sheppard Air 
Force Base by funding the new fighter trainer and authorizing military 
construction for a new child development center.
  Also included are countless provisions I authored that put 
servicemembers first and ensure the safety of all soldiers, airmen, 
marines, and guardians.
  The NDAA continues efforts on the Future Vertical Lift to make sure 
we have a rotary aircraft that can operate in future conflicts with 
China or Russia.
  As we consider amendments, I hope that this bill remains focused on 
national security and can be passed in a good-faith manner as we did 
almost unanimously in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for 
their leadership in putting together a bipartisan defense bill.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight an amendment that is sponsored by 
several of our colleagues that will be in the NDAA and that we will 
hear more about this evening and tomorrow. It deals with PFAS, forever 
chemicals. We have debated issues about PFAS on this floor, but 
unfortunately members of our armed services sometimes end up being 
human guinea pigs for these PFAS.
  This amendment will deal with many of these concerns. It directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide DOD medical providers with mandatory 
training with respect to the potential health effects of PFAS. We have 
seen this in North Carolina, particularly at Fort Bragg.
  It requires the EPA to obtain analytical reference standards for 
PFAS, for the development of protocols and methodologies and 
enforcement activities.
  It clarifies the scope of PFAS data reporting from the 2020 NDAA.
  It amends title III, section 318 to clarify that DOD must comply with 
safe incineration of PFAS as enacted in section 330 of the NDAA of 
fiscal year 2020.
  It requires the report on DOD progress to comply with EPA safe PFAS 
disposal guidelines, and it requires that this report be submitted one 
year after enactment of the act, and it includes that they report to 
the Committee on Armed Services.

                              {time}  1700

  It requires the report to include the actions the DOD has taken to 
comply with that section. It defines the scope of prohibition to ensure 
that PFAS materials sent to third-parties for disposal are also covered 
by the provisions.
  It expresses the sense of Congress that the Air Force has 
contaminated real property with PFOS and PFOA chemicals, and it should 
use existing authority to acquire property and provide relocation 
assistance.
  It requires a report detailing contamination sites and acquisition 
and relocation status.
  It requires a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS, 
and clarifies congressional intent by requiring manufacturers to 
disclose all PFAS discharges over 100 pounds.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer), my good friend and the distinguished ranking 
member of the Oversight Committee.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to certain 
PFAS-related provisions that are included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  While it is important to provide funding for cleanup, it is also 
critical that efforts to regulate PFAS do so in a way that defines the 
chemicals consistently, adequately, and properly as supported by sound 
science. In this current version of the NDAA, what is defined as PFAS 
is left open to interpretation or defined under an extremely broad 
definition.
  Broad definition risks subjecting thousands of chemicals to 
unnecessary restrictions and create regulatory uncertainty for numerous 
products. A few products that could fall under this overly broad 
definition include lithium ion batteries, semiconductors, refrigerants, 
and medical devices. These products that could be impacted, provide 
critical benefits to our military

[[Page H4571]]

and our broader society and should be manufactured in the United 
States.
  In the NDAA and with all legislation it is essential that we properly 
define PFAS up front so that implementing regulations can focus on 
materials such as PFOA and PFOS where there is scientific consensus for 
regulation. Throughout bicameral negotiations, I urge the careful 
consideration of drafting PFAS definitions that are properly focused, 
targeted, and supported by sound science.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some additional benefits 
of this NDAA in dealing with global challenges.
  H.R. 4350 invests in tools to combat the unprecedented challenge of a 
global pandemic, racial inequities, and a deepening climate emergency.
  The NDAA authorizes funding for national defense and prioritizes 
programs and policies to confront the growing threat of China and 
Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my good friend.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the continuing 
resolution we are debating this afternoon includes a suspension of the 
limit on our national debt through the end of next year.
  Our national debt is already at historic levels. In fact, today our 
national debt represents about $85,000 for every American man, woman, 
and child, and it is going to get worse.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at the rate we are 
going in just a few short years that debt will more than double, and 
just paying interest on that debt will consume 10 percent of everything 
our country makes.
  Every other time we have considered raising this debt ceiling that 
conversation has been accompanied by a discussion of how we are going 
to pay that money back. But, unfortunately, that is not occurring 
today.
  I have introduced a constitutional amendment that would require the 
Federal budget to be balanced, which would help us pay down this 
national debt over time. But absent discussion of getting our fiscal 
house in order, it is unconscionable to leave that legacy of debt to 
our children and kick the can down the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I must urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, there are additional wonderful amendments 
dealing with cybersecurity that are in the NDAA.
  We will hear again about another cybersecurity training pilot program 
for the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans and members of the 
Armed Forces transitioning from service to civilian life. It creates a 
registered apprenticeship program at the Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency focused on cybersecurity and 
infrastructure security. Both programs will be established in 
coordination with the Department of Defense.
  We know that we do not have enough people in civilian life with this 
cybersecurity training as we face these threats like we saw in my home 
State of North Carolina with the Colonial Pipeline.
  Having this transition from DOD to civilian life and having 
supportive apprenticeship programs will go a long way to fighting 
cybersecurity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs), my good friend.
  Mr. JACOBS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4350, 
the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Our Nation faces many challenges in the coming years, from the 
growing threat of terrorism brought on by our reckless withdrawal from 
Afghanistan to Chinese aggression.
  This bill reverses defense cuts proposed by the Biden administration 
to fund our military and ensure our Nation can counter any threat.
  It also addresses President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from 
Afghanistan by prohibiting financial support to the Taliban and 
allocating resources for counterterrorism operations.

  In addition, it provides our troops a pay raise and supports the 
procurement of essential equipment.
  Finally, the bill includes a bill I introduced to improve retention 
and readiness for providing opportunities for reservists, and the rule 
makes in order my amendment that will get more small and innovative 
companies access to DOD contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, we face numerous challenges both today and in the 
future. This legislation prioritizes resources for our military at a 
critical time, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the distinguished 
Republican ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding.
  For months, Democrats have been pursuing a radical partisan agenda 
that will pile on trillions to our debt, and we are here today where 
they are asking Republicans to basically help them get a loan.
  They are pushing the most expensive piece of legislation in the 
history of the United States with the largest tax increase in the 
history of the United States. And yet Democrats are demanding we hold 
the door open so that they can ram through this partisan reckless 
agenda.
  The debt limit is a chance for Congress to address government 
spending, something we have done since 1985.
  Sadly, today, the Democrats are playing chicken with a government 
shutdown by tying the debt ceiling to a CR so they can enact their 
multi-trillion-dollar partisan tax and spending plan, which currently 
clocks in at $4.3 trillion, no matter the harm it will do, no matter 
how it will fuel more inflation that is crippling family budgets.
  Budget Republicans sent a letter to Congressional leaders back in 
July outlining over half a dozen approaches Congress has taken in the 
past to address government spending with a debt limit increase.
  But they have ignored all of our suggestions, because the fact of the 
matter is my colleagues have one goal in mind, an agenda of more 
spending, more debt, and more taxes on working-class Americans.
  Democrats control the White House, they control the Senate, and they 
control the House. If they want to spend trillions of Americans' tax 
dollars, they can stand alone and ask for that loan.
  But Republicans will not cosign a loan for the Democrats' reckless 
agenda that harms working families, fuels more record inflation, and 
rewards their political allies and donors.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 
faith-based religious and civil rights organizations expressing their 
support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

                                                    June 16, 2021.
     Hon. Dick Durbin,
     Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on The 
         Constitution, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Cruz,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Subcommittee on The Constitution, Washington, DC.

   101 Faith-Based, Religious, & Civil Rights Organizations Express 
             Support for the Women's Health Protection Act

       Dear Senators Durbin, Grassley, Blumenthal, Cruz, and 
     Committee Members: As faith-based, religious, and civil 
     rights organizations that share a commitment to religious 
     freedom and the separation of religion and government, we 
     write to express our strong and unequivocal support for S 
     1975, the Women's Health Protection Act.
       We affirm our nation's founding principle of religious 
     liberty, which is integrally bound to reproductive freedom. 
     Religious liberty includes the right to follow one's own 
     faith or moral code in making critical, personal reproductive 
     health decisions, without political interference. While we 
     respect the right of every individual, including our 
     lawmakers, to hold their own personal and religious beliefs, 
     our country's Constitution demands that no one impose a 
     single religious viewpoint on all through civil law or 
     regulation. The Women's Health Protection Act is essential 
     legislation that embodies these shared ideals.
       The Women's Health Protection Act is urgently needed. The 
     nearly 500 abortion bans and restrictions enacted since 2011 
     have severely reduced or eliminated abortion access

[[Page H4572]]

     in large swaths of the country and fall hardest on those who 
     already face barriers to accessing health care--including 
     women; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); those 
     working to make ends meet; members of the LGBTQI+ community; 
     immigrants; young people; those living in rural communities; 
     and people with disabilities. The Women's Health Protection 
     Act is an important bill that would enact protections on the 
     federal level to safeguard access to high-quality care and to 
     secure constitutional rights by protecting patients and 
     providers from political or religious interference.
       Rather than face onerous barriers due to their economic 
     status, employment status, or zip code, this bill would 
     ensure that each person can make a decision about abortion 
     led by their own circumstances, faith, or beliefs. It would 
     also protect the religious liberty of individual health care 
     providers seeking to administer quality care to their 
     patients and enable providers to deliver abortion services 
     free from burdensome restrictions designed to impede access 
     rather than improve patient health.
       We believe in compassion, justice, and dignity for all, 
     compelling us to speak out for social justice and the right 
     of every person to access comprehensive, affordable, and 
     equitable reproductive health care. A compassionate nation 
     ensures equal access to quality, timely health abortion care 
     for everyone, an essential factor to social and economic 
     participation, reproductive and moral autonomy, and the right 
     to determine our own lives. In contrast, laws that limit the 
     availability of abortion disrespect human dignity, erode 
     constitutional rights, exact far-reaching health and economic 
     consequences, and ignore the moral agency of physicians 
     seeking to provide compassionate care.
       Furthermore, laws that eliminate options for some based on 
     their geographic location are profoundly unjust, pushing care 
     out of reach for the most marginalized among us. We cannot 
     remain idle as state laws transform our country into a map of 
     ``haves and have-nots'' with regard to access to reproductive 
     health services. We call on Congress to pass Women's Health 
     Protection Act to protect access to abortion and to help us 
     build a society where all can participate equally and thrive 
     in our communities with dignity.
       Every day, we support equal, fair, and comprehensive access 
     to health care and respect for personal decision-making. We 
     support the Women's Health Protection Act as a means to this 
     end and urge you and your colleagues to do the same. The 
     117th Congress must act in solidarity with people and 
     communities fighting for racial, economic, and reproductive 
     justice and commit to protecting the right of every person to 
     make their own decisions about their bodies, free from 
     discrimination and political interference. It is the right 
     thing to do.
       Please contact Shannon Russell, Legislative Counsel at the 
     National Council of Jewish Women, with any questions or for 
     additional information.
       Respectfully,
       National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Choice, 
     Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union for Reform 
     Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism.


                         National Organizations

       A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist; African 
     American Ministers In Action (AAMIA); ALEPH: Alliance for 
     Jewish Renewal; Ameinu; American Atheists; American Humanist 
     Association; American Jewish World Service; Anti-Defamation 
     League; Avodah; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; CenterLink: 
     The Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of 
     American Rabbis; Chicago Women-Church; Clergy Advocacy 
     Board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; CORPUS; 
     Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Women's 
     Caucus; Freedom From Religion Foundation.
       Global Justice Institute (MCC); Habonim Dror North America; 
     Human Rights Campaign; Interfaith Voices for Reproductive 
     Justice; Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; Jewish 
     Council for Public Affairs (JCPA); Jewish Women 
     International; Jews United for Justice; Keshet; Methodist 
     Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Churches 
     (MCC); Moving Traditions; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for 
     Progressive Values; National Center for Lesbian Rights; 
     National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition 
     of American Nuns (NCAN); National Organization for Women.
       Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies; People For the 
     American Way; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options; 
     Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructing Judaism, 
     Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Religious 
     Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Tivnu: Building 
     Justice; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; 
     Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Voices for Progress; 
     We Testify; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual 
     (WATER); Women's League for Conservative Judaism; Women's 
     Ordination Conference.


                      State & Local Organizations

       Florida Interfaith Coalition for Reproductive Health and 
     Justice; Jewish Community Action; Just Texas: Faith Voices 
     for Reproductive Freedom; Michigan Organization on Adolescent 
     Sexual Health (MOASH); Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social 
     Justice Network (MUUSJN); National Council of Jewish Women, 
     Arizona Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Atlanta 
     Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Austin Section; 
     National Council of Jewish Women, Chicago North Shore 
     Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Cleveland Section; 
     National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Essex County Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Greater Dallas Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Greater Long Beach & West Orange 
     County Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater New 
     Orleans Section.
       National Council of Jewish Women, Houston Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Jersey Hills Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Kansas City Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Maine Section; National Council of 
     Jewish Women, Milwaukee Section; National Council of Jewish 
     Women, Minnesota Section; National Council of Jewish Women, 
     Nashville Section; National Council of Jewish Women, New York 
     Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Northern Virginia; 
     National Council of Jewish Women, Palm Beach Section; 
     National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section; National 
     Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section; National Council 
     of Jewish Women, Sacramento Section; National Council of 
     Jewish Women, San Antonio Section; National Council of Jewish 
     Women, Sarasota-Manatee Section; National Council of Jewish 
     Women, Southeast Atlantic Section.
       National Council of Jewish Women, South Cook Section; 
     National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section; Nebraska 
     Religious Council for Reproductive Freedom; New Mexico 
     Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Ohio Religious 
     Coalition for Reproductive Choice; PA Religious Coalition for 
     Reproductive Justice; Religious Coalition for Reproductive 
     Choice of Connecticut, Inc.; Rhode Island Religious Coalition 
     for Reproductive Freedom; Sister Reach; South Carolina 
     Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Texas Freedom 
     Network; United Church of Christ Detroit Area Social Justice 
     Team.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
National Nurses United, dated September 21 expressing their resounding 
support for H.R. 3755.
  The letter states: ``On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses 
represented by the National Nurses United, we write to you today to 
endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 sponsored by 
Representative Chu. We strongly urge you to vote `yes' on this critical 
piece of legislation when it is brought to the floor of the House of 
Representatives.''

                                       National Nurses United,

                                               September 21, 2021.
       Dear Representative: National Nurses United supports the 
     right of all women and people who can get pregnant to full 
     and equal healthcare services, including reproductive and 
     family planning health services as a fundamental human right. 
     On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by 
     National Nurses United (NNU), we write to you today to 
     endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (HR 3755) 
     sponsored by Representative Judy Chu. We strongly urge you to 
     vote yes on this critical piece of legislation when it is 
     brought to a vote on the floor of the House of 
     Representatives.
       The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) establishes a 
     statutory right for health professionals to provide abortion 
     care without any medically unnecessary restrictions or 
     limitations that impede access to abortion. With increasing 
     attacks on reproductive rights, it is critical that Congress 
     swiftly takes steps to protect access to abortion and 
     reproductive health care.
       Nurses, the majority of whom are women, play an essential 
     role in the delivery of reproductive health services for 
     millions of patients every day, and we have a duty to 
     advocate for the health and safety of our patients. Without 
     access to abortion services, patients who are pregnant may be 
     at risk of illness and death due to pregnancy, or may be at 
     risk of avoidable complications from unsafe and illegal 
     abortion practices. Further, access to quality reproductive 
     healthcare allows people to make decisions for themselves on 
     whether and when to have children, an essential component of 
     equality that enables full participation in our society. 
     Nurses know that unless we bring down the barriers to care, 
     people will go without the necessary healthcare they deserve.
       The decision to have an abortion is a decision that should 
     be made between a person and their healthcare providers--it 
     is not a decision that politicians have any right to be 
     engaged in. Patients have the right to seek abortion care 
     with the counsel of a trusted healthcare provider, regardless 
     of where they live, and it is critical that Congress protects 
     that right.
       We urge you to stand with nurses and vote yes on HR 3755 to 
     protect the right of all people to access abortion care and 
     reproductive health services.
           Sincerely,
     Bonnie Castillo, RN,
       Executive Director, National Nurses United.
     Deborah Burger, RN,

[[Page H4573]]

       President, National Nurses United.
     Zenei Cortez, RN,
       President, National Nurses United.
     Jean Ross, RN,
       President, National Nurses United.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20 
medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American 
Medical Women's Association, to name a few, expressing their support 
for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

                                                    June 14, 2021.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     U.S Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Judy Chu,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Blumenthal and Representative Chu: On behalf 
     of the undersigned medical organizations, representing 
     physicians dedicated to advancing the health of our patients, 
     thank you for introducing the Women's Health Protection Act 
     (S. 1975/H.R. 3755). The purpose of your legislation--to 
     protect the patient-physician relationship and preserve the 
     ability of physicians to provide evidence-based care to their 
     patients----is critically important.
       Federal, state, and local lawmakers have long played an 
     important role in our health care system. The myriad policies 
     aimed at addressing the ongoing COVID-19 public health 
     emergency provide a prime example of legislators acting to 
     improve the health of their constituents. However, physician 
     leaders have long raised concerns, including in a New England 
     Journal of Medicine commentary nearly a decade ago, about the 
     alarming increase in legislators ``overstepping the proper 
     limits of their role in the health care of Americans to 
     dictate the nature and content of patients' interactions with 
     their physicians.'' This overreach has taken many forms, 
     including creating unnecessary obstacles for patients trying 
     to access medically appropriate care, forcing physicians to 
     practice outside the bounds of evidence-based medicine, and 
     criminalizing physicians for providing compassionate and 
     evidence-based care. The communities most impacted by these 
     barriers are those already experiencing grave inequities in 
     the health care system. The Women's Health Protection Act 
     would address an area of medicine systematically targeted 
     with government overregulation--reproductive health care--by 
     prohibiting these inappropriate restrictions and restoring 
     the ability of patients to receive comprehensive care free 
     from legislative intrusion.
       Thank you again for sponsoring this important legislation 
     to prevent legislative interference in the practice of 
     medicine and protect the patient-physician relationship.
           Sincerely,
       American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 
     American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of 
     Pediatrics; American College of Physicians; American 
     Gynecological & Obstetrical Society (AGOS); American Medical 
     Women's Association (AMWA); American Psychiatric Association; 
     American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Council of 
     University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CUCOG); 
     Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology 
     (IDSOG).
       North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent 
     Gynecology; Society of Academic Specialists in General 
     Obstetrics and Gynecology; Society for Adolescent Health and 
     Medicine; Society of Family Planning; Society of Gynecologic 
     Oncology; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Society of OB/
     GYN Hospitalists; Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and 
     Infertility; Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists 
     (WAGO); Womxn's Health Collaborative.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 16 
attorneys general expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's 
Health Protection Act.
                                                State of New York,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                    June 16, 2021.
     Hon. Dick Durbin,
     Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     Chair, Senate Committee on the Constitution,
     Washington, DC.
      Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Cruz,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee and 
     Subcommittee: As the Supreme Court has consistently 
     recognized, ``[t]he ability of women to participate equally 
     in the economic and social life of the Nation has been 
     facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive 
     lives.'' Accordingly, laws that impose an undue burden on a 
     woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy are 
     unconstitutional. Nonetheless, many states across the country 
     have enacted laws in the name of promoting women's health 
     that do not, in fact, advance women's health or safety but 
     are instead designed to restrict access to abortion services. 
     These include laws requiring physicians have admitting 
     privileges at hospitals and setting arbitrary requirements at 
     women's health clinics for the size of procedure rooms and 
     corridors. As the Attorneys General of our respective states, 
     we write in support of the Women's Health Protection Act, 
     which would protect the constitutional right to abortion by 
     prohibiting medically unnecessary restrictions that 
     specifically target abortion providers and undermine the 
     availability of abortion services.
       The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) targets onerous 
     state laws that have been adopted in a concerted strategy to 
     restrict access to abortion. In Whole Woman's Health v. 
     Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), the Supreme Court ruled 
     that a Texas law that required abortion providers to maintain 
     admitting privileges at a local hospital failed to advance 
     women's health and posed an undue burden on women seeking an 
     abortion. Last year, a coalition of 22 attorneys general 
     helped to win another victory in June Medical Services v. 
     Gee, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), in which the Supreme Court held 
     that a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. Rather 
     than waiting for medically unnecessary restrictions to 
     continue to be challenged in the courts--a process that can 
     often take years--Congress should pass the WHPA to ensure 
     that such restrictions are not imposed in the first place. 
     Medically unnecessary restrictions targeting abortion 
     providers actually disserve women's health and safety and 
     pose challenges for states that aim to provide a full range 
     of reproductive health services, including abortion services.
       Often, strict requirements imposed on abortion providers 
     are presented as measures to protect and advance women's 
     health. Yet evidence shows that these restrictions instead 
     lead to worse health outcomes for women. One recent study in 
     Texas found that the maternal mortality rate in the state 
     doubled between 2010 and 2012, a period in which access to 
     women's health care services, including abortion services, 
     had become more difficult to obtain. Women who find 
     themselves too far from an abortion provider may have to 
     delay obtaining an abortion, which can. lead to health risks 
     and add to the cost of the procedure. Alternatively, some 
     women may resort to ``black market'' or self-induced 
     abortions, which can be extremely dangerous and lead to 
     serious injury or even death. And women who are forced to 
     carry a pregnancy to term after being denied abortion 
     services are four times more likely to develop potentially 
     life-threatening health conditions and are substantially more 
     likely to experience physical violence from abusive partners 
     or family members. These statistics illustrate the very real 
     cost to women throughout the United States from burdensome 
     laws that restrict the availability of safe and legal 
     abortion care. The widely known negative effects of laws 
     targeting abortion providers undermines any argument that 
     such laws are intended to promote women's health.
       At the same time, the consequences of these laws are 
     already evident across the country. Research from 2017 found 
     that thirty-eight percent of women between the ages of 15 to 
     44 live in counties without an abortion clinic. Between 2014 
     and 2017, twenty-five abortion clinics shuttered in the South 
     and the Midwest. As of June 2019, six states have only a 
     single abortion clinic remaining. As providers close due to 
     the impact of medically unnecessary restrictions, women are 
     likely to be forced to travel farther and make greater 
     sacrifices to get access to services. Unfortunately, these 
     burdens often fall disproportionately on lower-income women 
     who cannot afford to travel, take time off work, or find 
     childcare in order to get to the nearest provider.
       As Attorneys General, we are committed to ensuring that 
     each state satisfies its constitutional obligation to protect 
     the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy within its 
     borders. Among other things, we are deeply concerned about 
     protecting the constitutional rights of our residents who may 
     need medical care while present as students, workers, or 
     visitors in states with drastically restricted abortion 
     access. In addition, a substantial reduction in the 
     availability of abortion services in some states can cause 
     women to seek medical care in other states, thereby straining 
     their health care systems. Indeed, history shows that many 
     women will cross state lines, if they have the means to do 
     so, when abortions are unavailable in the states where they 
     live. For example, in the nearly three years between New York 
     State's liberalization of its abortion laws in 1970 and 1973 
     when the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled 
     that the right to choose was constitutionally protected, 
     close to 350,000 women came to New York from other states 
     where abortions were entirely or largely unavailable.In the 
     wake of recent abortion restrictions, some states, including 
     several of our own, have experienced a substantial influx of 
     out-of-state patients seeking abortions as a result of 
     reduced access in their home states.
       Our states stand ready and willing to provide reproductive 
     care services to those who need them. However, a significant 
     and sudden increase in patients seeking abortions, especially 
     as a consequence of laws that do not advance women's health 
     and decrease available services, runs the risk of straining 
     the health care systems of less restrictive states. This in 
     turn can impair the availability of care and affect the 
     reproductive

[[Page H4574]]

     choices of both residents and non-residents alike in those 
     states. Our states aim to continue providing a wide range of 
     reproductive health care services, including abortion 
     services, but our ability to do so could be substantially 
     burdened by the responsibility of ensuring that all women in 
     need of abortions are able to safely obtain one. The WHPA 
     would address this problem by safeguarding access to abortion 
     services in all states.
       We support the passage of the WHPA given how it will help 
     to restore and facilitate access to abortion services 
     throughout the United States, upholding this critical 
     constitutional right. We look forward to working with you and 
     your committees as you consider this legislation. Please let 
     us know how we may be of assistance during this process.
           Sincerely,
         Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Rob Bonta, 
           California Attorney General; Philip Weiser, Colorado 
           Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut Attorney 
           General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; 
           Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; 
           Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron Frey, 
           Maine Attorney General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland 
           Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney 
           General; Aaron Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector 
           Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Ellen F. 
           Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Thomas J. Donovan, 
           Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, 
           Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington 
           State Attorney General.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend from North 
Carolina. We don't agree obviously on the rule, we don't agree on every 
piece of legislation, but I appreciate the civility and the quality of 
the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, to me, as I look at both the rule and the underlying 
legislation, the phrase that immediately comes to my mind is the good, 
the bad, and the ugly.
  Let's start with the good. There is no question that the National 
Defense Authorization Act is a product of bipartisan cooperation of the 
highest order on the House Armed Services Committee. Nobody got 
everything they wanted, but there are a lot of things in there that 
both sides worked together on to achieve. I particularly want to 
commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for the manner in 
which they approached this bill. I want to commend them for the 
additional $25 billion. I know that the chairman didn't support that, 
but obviously many Democratic Members did. I think that was an 
important sign that the country is united on the idea that we need to 
spend more on defense in these very dangerous times.
  Again, the quality of the compromise and some of the legislation that 
is included in this is extraordinarily important. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) mentioned the issue of sexual assault. It is 
addressed in this bill in a bipartisan, thoughtful way. I thank her for 
her tireless work on that very important subject.
  I also thank those Members that worked hard to reposition our defense 
where we focus on our emerging threats, our near-peer threats of China 
and Russia while also dealing with North Korea, Iran, and the threat of 
global terrorism.
  It is a good bill. Not everybody will support it, but I think it will 
get overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward 
to voting for it.
  To me, the bad is H.R. 3755. I make no bones about it, Mr. Speaker. I 
am strongly pro-life. I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. I 
respect those with a different point of view, but this is not a 
codification of Roe v. Wade. This is a radical abortion bill that would 
allow abortion-on-demand in every State under almost any circumstances 
that the provider of the abortion deems appropriate.
  Quite frankly, it is an enormous overreach, and it will overturn 
dozens of State laws in many States all around the country, laws that 
have been constitutionally approved in the past. That is unfortunate, 
and I think many on our side that certainly work on women's health are 
not going to vote in support of abortion-on-demand.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, finally, to me, the continuing resolution unquestionably 
is the ugly. It is not all ugly. There are actually some good things in 
there. I actually commend my friends for voting to keep the government 
open. I would normally do that as well. No partisan debate there, at 
least not from me.
  I also very much support the relief for those Americans who have been 
the victims of natural disasters, which is contained in the bill. That, 
too, was negotiated by the Committee on Appropriations. It is an 
appropriate measure.
  So, too, is the money set aside to help those fleeing from the 
Taliban, those who worked with our forces in Afghanistan and who now 
come to our country and to other countries seeking refuge and support. 
We should honor the commitment and the sacrifice they made on our 
behalf.
  We could have passed a bill like that in a united, bipartisan 
fashion. Indeed, the Committee on Appropriations had essentially 
negotiated the deal. Then a decision was made by Democratic leadership 
to interject a debt ceiling resolution without any discussion, any 
negotiation, any way to lower that debt or offset it or slow it down or 
reform the process. That is what many of my friends object to.
  I voted for debt ceiling increases in the past under both Republican 
and Democratic Presidents. I certainly would be prepared to do so 
again, but not without addressing some of the drivers of the debt, and 
certainly not as a sign off on a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that 
is on top of our normal appropriations, on top of the bipartisan 
release given and the coronavirus crisis thus far.
  That is a stretch too far. My friends know that it won't work, yet we 
are going to kick it over to the Senate, where we know the support is 
not there.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will be back on this floor dealing with 
this matter again, hopefully in a fashion where the two parties can 
work together and keep the government open and operational.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we have a solemn duty to 
provide for our servicemembers and to keep our promise to our Afghan 
allies. The fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act will do 
both.
  This NDAA will also invest in our Nation's defense by promoting 
cutting-edge research and development, much of which happens at our 
institutions of higher education, such as those in North Carolina's 
Research Triangle.
  We also must pass the continuing resolution in order to support our 
Afghan allies, provide relief to regions recovering from Hurricane Ida 
and other natural disasters, suspend the debt limit, and keep our 
government funded.
  Finally, we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act to enable 
women across the country to access reproductive healthcare, including 
abortion care.
  I want to highlight a discrepancy between the rhetoric and policies 
of opponents of reproductive freedom, particularly those from States 
like mine, including Texas. These opponents claim to be pro-life, to be 
working to protect families and babies, but almost always, these are 
the same people who oppose Medicaid expansion, universal childcare, and 
the expansion of the child tax credit.
  In the United States today, babies that do not get prenatal care are 
five times more likely to die than babies that do get prenatal care. 
Prenatal care is one of the many critical forms of healthcare that 
Medicaid covers.
  Medicaid also provides postpartum care coverage to new mothers, and 
the American Rescue Plan gave States the option to extend that coverage 
from 60 days to 12 months. Postpartum care is key to protecting new 
mothers from a variety of serious conditions that can develop after 
birth. Similarly, universal childcare and the child tax credit are 
investments in babies and in families.
  Today, in America, supporting children and families means supporting 
Medicaid expansion, affordable childcare, tax benefits for families--
all of which are included in the Build Back Better Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.

[[Page H4575]]

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 667

  At the end of the resolution, add the following;

       Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 4828) to secure the international borders of the 
     United States, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4828.

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 210, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               YEAS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kinzinger
     Lee (CA)
     Lesko

                              {time}  1753

  Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina and CRENSHAW changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, on roll call vote 263, I was not 
present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yes'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 667.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Burgess (Jackson)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Carter (TX) (Calvert)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Courtney (Perlmutter)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
     Latta (Walberg)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Morelle (Tonko)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Reed (Garbarino)
     Rice (SC) (Wilson (SC))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Ryan (Kildee)
     Smith (NJ) (Van Drew)
     Smith (WA) (Kilmer)
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Stefanik
     (Reschenthaler)
     Strickland (Torres (NY))
     Swalwell (Veasey)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 207, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               YEAS--217

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele

[[Page H4576]]


     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Grothman
     Horsford
     Jackson
     LaMalfa
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Newhouse

                              {time}  1817

  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in an important meeting. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 264.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Burgess (Jackson)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Carter (TX) (Calvert)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Courtney (Perlmutter)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
     Latta (Walberg)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Morelle (Tonko)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Reed (Garbarino)
     Rice (SC) (Wilson (SC))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Ryan (Kildee)
     Smith (NJ) (Van Drew)
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Stefanik
     (Reschenthaler)
     Strickland (Torres (NY))
     Swalwell (Veasey)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________