[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4392-H4401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1435, PRESERVING CHOICE IN VEHICLE 
PURCHASES ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4365, DEPARTMENT OF 
                    DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 680

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1435) to 
     amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the 
     sale of internal combustion engines. 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 Energy 
     and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4365) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
       Sec. 3. (a) No amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in 
     section 4 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments 
     described in section 5 of this resolution.
       (b) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules 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, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of this 
     resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       (c) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en 
     bloc described in section 4 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 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 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of this 
     resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       Sec. 5.  During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 6.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger 
Fernandez), my very good friend, 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

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 680.
  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 myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the Rules Committee met and reported out a

[[Page H4393]]

rule, House Resolution 680, consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024, under a structured 
rule.
  It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees. It also makes in order 184 amendments; more than 75 
percent of those eligible for consideration. Finally, it provides for a 
motion to recommit.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, our democracy remains a beacon of hope to the entire 
world. Billions of people across the globe look to the United States as 
a leader in freedom and liberty and as a protector of peace. From the 
very moment our Nation was conceived, a strong national defense has 
been a differentiator of democracy. Essential to protecting the 
homeland, international order, and the American people from those who 
would seek to do us harm, we must never lose sight of the need to 
maintain a strong defense.
  Although our men and women in uniform give of themselves every day, 
they cannot do their jobs unless Congress does its job. Only Congress 
can provide the funding our military needs to fulfill its duties. That 
is our responsibility. Today we move forward with that commitment as we 
take up H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2024. We must do our duty and make sure that our brave 
military members can move forward with theirs.
  With evolving threats, we continue to face a struggle seen throughout 
time. The contest between freedom and tyranny is not far from us. From 
Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion of Ukraine, to China's 
posturing in the South China Sea, to continued threats posed by 
extremists and terrorists, hostile actors are looking for weakness. 
Yet, America's Armed Forces remain ready to meet any challenge wherever 
it may arise. Continuing to meet those threats requires an appropriate 
investment of national resources. With today's measure, we fulfill that 
commitment and ensure that our Armed Forces will have the resources 
they need to meet any foe anywhere in the world at any time.
  The bill before us provides full funding for the national defense. It 
appropriates $826 billion in new discretionary spending, which is a 
modest increase of $300 million over the President's budget request and 
nearly $29 billion, or 3.6 percent, over the fiscal year 2023 enacted 
level.
  H.R. 4365 makes targeted investments that support critical 
priorities. Perhaps the most important of these priorities is to 
reinvest in our servicemen and -women. The bill provides a 5.2 percent 
pay raise for our servicemembers. For junior enlisted servicemembers, 
we provide an historic pay increase of an average of 30 percent, 
ensuring that we not only offset the effects of President Biden's 
inflationary crisis for these younger and most junior servicemembers, 
but also ensuring that we can retain servicemembers who are at the 
beginning of their military careers.
  I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, not to give credit to the gentleman 
from California (Mr.  Mike Garcia), my good friend and fellow defense 
appropriator, for this particular measure, both in the appropriations 
bill and, frankly, in the NDAA, as well. His work on behalf of younger 
servicepeople has been exemplary, relentless, and effective.
  The bill also makes continued and necessary investments to ensure 
that we will continue to have the best equipped and best-trained 
fighting force now and into the future. We fund continued expansion of 
the Navy, making sure that we will be able to continue to protect 
freedom of the seas around the globe and fund development and 
acquisition of next-generation weapons systems.
  However, it doesn't stop there, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4365 also ensures 
that the Biden administration cannot continue to put politics ahead of 
national security. It preserves existing and longstanding bipartisan 
bans on taxpayer funding for abortions. It also ensures that Federal 
dollars cannot be used to indoctrinate our troops with progressive 
ideology like critical race theory training, and instead ensures that 
the Pentagon's focus is where it should be: on military readiness and 
preparedness so that our warfighters can defeat aggression and defend 
freedom anywhere in the world.
  All in all, there is much to like in today's bill, Mr. Speaker. I 
look forward to advancing this measure through a robust amendment 
process on the floor and onward to final passage. I urge Members to 
support both the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Cole for the dignity 
and respect that he shows each of his colleagues on the Rules 
Committee. It is a great honor to be debating this rule with him this 
afternoon.
  I must, however, rise in opposition to the rule because we only have 
six legislative days left to fund the government, and we are 
considering only one of the eleven bills that we must pass to fully 
fund our Federal Government.
  I completely agree with our chair that our country is a beacon of 
hope and that we must, indeed, fund our military in the way that they 
need in order to continue to provide that beacon of hope and that 
strength that we must communicate both to our allies and those who 
would do us harm.
  Indeed, America is facing significant security threats from a 
rampaging Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and a soon-to-be nuclear 
North Korea. Instead of uniting us, however, against those very real 
threats, extreme MAGA Republicans are putting Americans at war with 
each other with this divisive Defense appropriations bill.
  Extreme MAGA Republicans are weakening our military readiness. In the 
Senate, Republicans are refusing to allow votes on flag officers, so we 
don't have the generals, admirals, and top military officers we need to 
lead our troops. Here in the House, instead of passing what should be 
and has historically been a bipartisan Defense appropriations bill, 
extreme Republicans are inserting the kitchen sink of culture war 
issues that we have seen too often.
  Indeed, when we talk about women, this bill is another step in their 
march toward a national abortion ban. If this bill is enacted, a 
servicewoman in a State with a total abortion ban that doesn't have 
exceptions for rape would not be able to take leave and get help to 
travel to a place like New Mexico where a woman's right to receive the 
full access to reproductive healthcare is honored. Fourteen States have 
a total ban on abortion. In each of those 14 States, we will find 
servicewomen who are honorably serving our Nation.
  In addition, this bill sets up minorities and our servicemembers who 
are gay, lesbian, and all individuals of the LGBTQ community to 
harassment.
  At a moment when we know that some of our bases are under threat from 
climate change, this bill cuts $714 million from climate resiliency 
programs. I have been to our bases in the Pacific islands, and I 
recognize that we must have climate resilience if we don't want our 
bases to be under water. By giving up on preparing for climate 
resiliency, we are giving up a strategic military advantage that we 
should take advantage of.

                              {time}  1230

  Instead of focusing on how we can improve recruitment from our 
diverse communities in America when we are failing to meet our 
recruitment goals, this appropriation prohibits funding for diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
  We know that people of color answer the call to service at 
disproportionately higher rates, and those numbers are not reflected in 
military leadership. This bill tells my Latino and Native American 
communities they are not valued.
  Congressman Neguse asked the Defense Subcommittee chair why he would 
cut funding for the chief diversity officer, a position that he had 
voted to create. The chair responded that it was the best way to get 
attention.
  That is how we legislate now, to get attention?
  Last week, in the Rules Committee, we tried to remedy some of these 
awful and unnecessary riders. Republicans voted our amendments down.
  All of these divisive riders harm our military readiness and hurt our 
servicemembers, servicemembers who put their lives on the line to 
protect us. It is never enough to just thank our servicemembers for 
their service. We need

[[Page H4394]]

to provide them with the benefits, quality of life, and respect that 
all of them deserve.
  These extreme provisions are a trend this year, however. Perhaps that 
is the reason we have passed only one appropriations bill under 
Republican leadership in the House this year.
  This Defense appropriations bill is the only one that we appear to be 
considering today. We are not considering a short-term funding package 
to ensure our government doesn't shut down. We are not considering 
something to cover all the appropriations bills.
  Today, we are considering the Defense appropriations bill, and it 
should be focused solely on national security. It should be about 
making sure our Nation has the best and brightest force. It should be 
about serving all the individuals who protect us.
  We should be unified in making sure our servicemembers have the 
resources they need and the respect they deserve. Instead, this bill 
attacks access to reproductive healthcare for our servicewomen and 
their families. It devalues the minorities, the Latinos, Black 
Americans, Native Americans, who serve and are looking for us to help 
them address the racism that still exists, unfortunately.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I begin by returning my deep respect, my deep regards, 
to my good friend from New Mexico. It has been a delight to have her on 
the Rules Committee, and we have found a lot of common ground working 
on Native American issues, where, frankly, she is an acknowledged 
national expert. I look forward to a long and good relationship with my 
friend.
  When it comes to this rule and bill, obviously, we have 
disagreements. Let me talk first about the point my friend makes about 
timing and how many bills have gotten done and where we are in the 
process. There is actually a great deal that I agree with her on.
  Sadly, we ought to also remember the Democratic Congress of last year 
didn't finish the appropriations process until December. If you looked 
at it the year before, it didn't finish until March the next year, 
after the end of the fiscal year. Being late around here is not new for 
either party, but our friends set the standard last time, I think. We 
will see how we end up.
  My friend made a comment that we had only done one bill. I will say 
that is one more than the Democratic United States Senators managed to 
do.
  The reality is the Senate didn't produce, under Democratic control, 
any bills for the last 2 years--none out of subcommittee, none out of 
full committee, none across the floor.
  We are dealing with a very difficult body on the other side of the 
rotunda. These timing issues, hopefully, we can all get better at this 
and work together. I actually think we have something this year in the 
debt ceiling agreement that will be helpful in that regard.
  The reality is if we don't get our work done by January 1, which is 
about the time Democrats got their work done last year, we will have a 
yearlong CR with a 1 percent across-the-board cut.
  I don't know any appropriator on either side of the aisle who wants 
to see that happen. I don't think most people who care deeply about the 
defense of the United States do. We have some forcing mechanisms in 
place. Hopefully, we will continue to make some better progress there.
  In terms of my friend's point about divisive social policy, I will 
point out where this started. It is the executive branch that made 
decisions to do things much differently than we have done before, and 
usually with no consultation with the Congress of the United States.
  Most of the things my friend disagrees with we consider corrective of 
executive overreach, including violation of the Hyde amendment, which 
is essentially, in my view, what the Department of Defense has decided 
on its own to do without discussion or consultation with the Congress 
of the United States. That is unfortunate. That is something, 
hopefully, we can work through and resolve in the months ahead.
  I will also say that we are just very different in terms of where we 
think the focus ought to be. This bill focuses on weapons acquisition, 
training, and readiness. We live in a very dangerous world. We think 
there is a big difference, for instance, between climate resilience and 
actively pushing climate change legislation, which we believe the 
original administration budget does.
  We want to refocus on the things that we think matter. We are not 
going to beat our adversaries if, God forbid, we find ourselves in a 
contest with any of them and our forces aren't well trained, aren't 
well armed, and aren't well prepared for the challenges they are going 
to face. That should be the main focus of the Department of Defense. We 
think the administration has lost its focus. We see this bill as a 
useful corrective.

  Finally, I point out to my friends on both sides of the aisle that, 
quite frankly, whatever we pass, we are going to sit down and negotiate 
with the United States Senate and with the President of the United 
States. As my friends know, the Democrats control the United States 
Senate, and we have a Democrat as the President of the United States. 
Wherever we end up, it is going to be a process of give-and-take and 
discussion, but it is important that the House have an opening 
position.
  The last point to make on this is if we get this bill across the 
floor--and I do say ``if'' because there is some controversy about 
whether or not we will make it, even on our own side. Even though 
nobody disagrees with the rule or disagrees with the bill, they have 
other points sometimes they want to make. Sadly, it shouldn't be with 
this bill. However, my friends never got the Defense bill across the 
floor by themselves when they were in the majority. There were too many 
divisions and splits within their Caucus to even bring it to the floor.
  If we manage to get this bill across the floor, we will actually, in 
that single action, have moved across the floor a larger percentage of 
the discretionary budget of the United States than my friends were ever 
able to do when they were in the majority.
  It is a complex bill, over half of the discretionary spending of the 
United States. There are lots of barriers and flash points where we 
disagree, but it is important that we continue the dialogue and the 
motion forward.
  I think we have the opportunity, in passing the rule and the 
underlying legislation, to do that today, and I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also thinking about last week's committee hearing 
and this discussion about the history of where we were with regard to 
the appropriations process. I think there is a very different mood this 
year than we had in the last cycle, and that is the fact that Democrats 
have never called to shut it down. That is exactly what we are hearing 
from Republicans on the other side of the aisle.
  We never took that position. We were always trying to work it out, 
not shut it down. Even though we might not have passed all the bills by 
September 30, we were working across the aisle with our colleagues, 
working with the Senate on the other side, so we never had a shutdown. 
What we had was constant movement toward an agreement.
  Indeed, the passed appropriations bills passed with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, both in the Senate and the House. We had hundreds 
of Republicans voting with the Democrats to pass the last 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my 
good friend, who I hold in high regard.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a bipartisan amendment that is made 
in order and will be offered by Representatives Gaetz and Jacobs to 
prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions.
  Since 2009, the United States has refused to use, produce, transfer, 
or sell cluster munitions. As a Nation, we could take pride in this 
decision.
  Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. They explode when 
touched

[[Page H4395]]

by a soldier, a farmer, or a child. They contaminate an entire field of 
combat, and they remain a deadly threat long past the end of a 
conflict. Rain and other events can move them from where they first 
landed to who knows where.
  Yet, the Biden administration recently chose to send cluster 
munitions to Ukraine. I condemn Russia's use of cluster munitions on 
Ukraine, but two evils do not add up to a greater good. The United 
States should not have provided cluster munitions to Ukraine, and this 
amendment is necessary to ensure such a transfer does not happen again.
  I also support this amendment because it is not specific to Ukraine. 
Now that the United States has opened the door to using cluster 
munitions, we have no idea where else the U.S. might decide to send 
them.
  An international treaty exists to ban cluster munitions. Mr. Speaker, 
112 countries have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions since 
May 2008, and 12 more have signed. Nigeria ratified the convention on 
February 28, and South Sudan did so on August 3.
  The United States and Russia are not parties to the treaty, and now 
each of us has brought these terrible weapons into play inside Ukraine.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing that can undermine the ban on cluster 
munitions is the willingness of governments to use or transfer these 
terrible, indiscriminate weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Gaetz-Jacobs 
amendment and prohibit the United States from any further transfers of 
cluster munitions.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I both agree and disagree with my friend from New Mexico 
about shutting down the government. I personally could not agree more 
with her. I think it is a dumb thing to do. I think it is a dangerous 
thing to do.
  I have never favored shutting down the government, and I have argued 
against it. The tactic doesn't work. I think it won't work this time. 
The American people expect us to keep the essential services of 
government going while we negotiate and get to a final solution.
  I will correct my friend on one thing. The Democrats have shut down 
the government. Frankly, they shut it down over DACA in 2017.
  Now, I always hand the Democrats this: When they shut it down or do 
something stupid, they are pretty quick to realize it, and they back 
off. I think they shut it down on a Friday and reopened it on a Monday, 
but they did indeed shut it down.

  It is simply an inappropriate tool in the toolbox, in my opinion. I 
have seen both sides use it. My side, sadly, has used it more. I hope 
we don't do it this time.
  Certainly, the great majority of our Members and the Speaker do not 
want to see a shutdown, and I think they have made that apparent over 
and over again.
  I hadn't particularly intended to comment on the ranking member's 
amendment because I know how passionately my good friend feels about 
this. I respect those feelings. Honestly, I respect the feelings of all 
those who hold that view.
  I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with President 
Biden when my good friend, the ranking member, is disagreeing with him. 
It shows it is not really a partisan issue. I think it is an issue of 
judgment.
  I have no doubt the President of the United States agonized before 
making this decision. It was clearly a decision he did not want to 
make, but I think he was compelled by two factors that probably decided 
the case for him, although I don't presume to speak for the President.
  Number one, we ought to always remember the enemies of Ukraine, 
Russia, introduced these weapons on the other side first and was using 
those weapons indiscriminately.
  Second, Ukraine is using these weapons in defense of its own 
territory and its own people in its own territory. That is not what the 
Russians are doing. They are aggressively, on the other side, using 
these in another country.
  Finally, again, just to be fair about the President's dilemma, we 
have used an extraordinary amount of ammunition trying to support 
Ukraine. I think we have some strains on our own stockpiles, and I 
suspect that was part of the decisionmaking. When you are in a war, you 
are in it to win it.
  Frankly, it was not the Ukrainians or the Americans that introduced 
this first. It was not the Ukrainians or the Americans or the European 
allies, who were there in vast numbers, that started this conflict. It 
is to the advantage of all that it ends as quickly as it can. The level 
of casualties on both sides is horrific, but the person who bears 
responsibility is Vladimir Putin. Frankly, the country that is the 
aggressor is Russia, and I am not going to begrudge the Ukrainians for 
getting what they need.
  As critical as I can sometimes be of President Biden, I will 
certainly not criticize him in this case because I think, in this case, 
he reluctantly made a tough decision, a decision he probably didn't 
want to make, but I think he made it for the right reasons. Therefore, 
I won't be supporting my friend's amendment later on today.

                              {time}  1245

  Although, again, I am glad we were able to make it in order. I think 
it is an important issue for us to discuss, and I look forward to a 
very vigorous debate on that later this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As we just noted, the chair of the committee has once again showed 
both his dignity and respect to his colleagues.
  I do want to point out that you are right, I did forget about that 
72-hour shutdown because it was very brief, and I agree with you, it is 
a stupid thing to do. No, I am sorry, I think you said it is a dumb 
thing to do, and it is because it causes so much pain for the people 
back home. They expect us to do our job, and the primary thing we are 
supposed to do is fund our government because it is not just the really 
hardworking employees who keep our airplanes flying in the air, who 
make sure that our food is inspected so we don't get sick, it is also 
the teachers in our schools who receive Title I funding in New Mexico.
  So many of my schools receive Title I funding. Those are the schools 
that have the fewest resources, so the Federal Government helps them 
out to make sure all our children, wherever they live, can get a good 
education. Those are the things that will be lost if we shut down the 
Federal Government.
  I point out that in contrast to the 72 hours, in 1995 under 
Republican leadership, 21 days the government was shut down; in 2013 
the government was shut down for 16 days; and then in 2018 they shut it 
down for 35 days. This is a refrain we hear over and over again. It 
happens under House Republican leadership so often as we just saw.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Salinas), a wonderful Member of our freshman class this year.
  Ms. SALINAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from New Mexico 
for her leadership and for yielding me some time.
  Mr. Speaker, each year, hundreds of Oregonians die after overdosing 
on fentanyl. This drug has torn communities apart, from Salem to 
Sheridan and everywhere in between. It is not just our State. It is all 
across the U.S.
  Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids account for more than 85 percent 
of all opioid-involved deaths in the U.S. This is an issue that harms 
all of us, and I think Members of both parties can agree that stemming 
the flow of these drugs into our communities is a bipartisan 
imperative.
  The appropriations process is one of our best opportunities to 
deliver critical funding to the organizations and agencies on the front 
lines of this fentanyl fight.
  Yet sadly, this process has been needlessly politicized by far-right 
politicians who would rather notch political victories than policy 
ones--and this shameful Defense appropriations bill is a prime example 
of that.
  By attaching anti-LGBTQ2SIA+ and anti-choice riders to this bill, 
extremists in this body have turned what should be a straightforward 
funding package into a political wedge issue.
  That needless politicization is especially concerning, given that 
this piece

[[Page H4396]]

of legislation contains critical funding to stop the flow of fentanyl 
into our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to let politics stand in the way of our 
fight against the fentanyl epidemic. As a new Member of this esteemed 
body, I did not come here for political gamesmanship. We should all be 
prioritizing people over partisanship.
  This is an all-hands-on-deck emergency, and I urge my colleagues to 
dispense with their partisan antics and focus on passing government 
funding legislation that meets the moment and delivers for all of our 
communities.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, there are some areas where I agree with my good friends and 
some areas where I disagree. Nobody disagrees on the importance of the 
fentanyl crisis and the importance of dealing in any way we can through 
whatever means we have with those who engage in trafficking that 
illegal drug that has killed tens of thousands of Americans.
  Quite frankly, I suspect later this week or next week we will give 
our friends the opportunity to work with us on homeland security 
measures that will deal with just that.
  I would point to, frankly, the abject failure of the Biden 
administration to defend the southern border. The green light that has 
been put out there is a huge cost for this massive influx of drugs into 
our own country.
  We passed H.R. 2 on this floor, Mr. Speaker, to try and deal with 
that, and we are going to provide our friends with some opportunities 
where maybe we can find some common ground. You can be pro-immigration 
and pro-border security at the same time. I think this administration 
has had a hard time doing that, and quite frankly, most of the policies 
that it reversed--whether it was building the wall or remain in 
Mexico--from the last administration were effective. You can tell by 
the record numbers of illegal entries we have, the record amount of 
trafficking we have in drugs, and sadly, in human beings across the 
border to know that the Biden border policy, which my friends have 
supported, has been a disaster. It is one that, again, we hope they not 
only recognize that disaster, but will work with us to correct some of 
those measures.
  Again, I am going to agree with my friend from New Mexico. I don't 
believe in shutting down the government. I know we occasionally have 
some people who believe that, although it is a very small number, it 
can be a very influential number in a House that is very narrowly 
divided.
  We are going to provide some opportunities both to our own Members 
and to our colleagues on the other side to avoid that and to negotiate 
in good faith, but again, I just reiterate a point where I know my 
friend and I agree: It is not an appropriate tool. It does not work. I 
would hope that we can avoid that.

  We also need to sit down and work together where we can, and there 
are a lot of areas in this bill that we can work on.
  The last point I will make--my friends talk about the conflicts that 
we have in the Defense bill--remember, we had a conflict in the last 
Congress when my friends in the House tried to unilaterally overturn 
the Hyde language, a bipartisan agreement that goes all the way back to 
1975 or 1976, as I recall, Mr. Speaker, and when that was struck, there 
were less than 150 Republicans in the House, so it was genuinely 
bipartisan. It wasn't just something we crammed down.
  My friends have changed their mind over the issue of using Federal 
dollars for abortion over the years. We have not changed our position, 
and we were able to beat that back even when we were in the minority 
because, at the end of the day, they couldn't pass the bills without 
Republican support.
  I think the administration has tried to go around Congress in this 
case and use Federal dollars without congressional consent to 
facilitate abortion, other than in cases where we are talking about 
rape, incest, or the life of the mother. We have no debate over the 
appropriate use of Federal dollars in those cases. We do in others. It 
doesn't mean people can't travel; we just shouldn't be using Federal 
dollars in this area. That is a longstanding principle that I would 
argue the Biden administration is trying to subvert.
  By the way, it is a principle that President Biden, until 2019 when 
he was running for President, accepted throughout his entire career. He 
was a champion of that until 2019 when his own party moved so far left 
he had to change his longstanding position in pursuit of the 
nomination.
  Again, this is politics, people are allowed to do what they want, but 
please don't chastise us for being consistent with a position we 
assumed in 1975 and have not changed. It is our friends who have 
changed their mind on this issue, and frankly, it is the administration 
that tried to subvert the will and the authority of Congress by moving 
around it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The concern that we have with the bill with regards to a woman's 
right to be able to determine for herself in conversation with her own 
faith, her own family, and her own doctors what kind of reproductive 
healthcare she wants access to is the fact that this bill would prevent 
servicewomen and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to 
obtain an abortion or related services if those services are not 
provided where she is assigned.
  Remember, servicewomen don't get to choose where they live and where 
they work. There have already been multiple legal opinions that using 
paid leave and traveling and getting assistance to get to a State where 
you can get medical care does not violate the Hyde amendment.
  Indeed, the Hyde amendment would allow you to get that kind of care 
if you were raped. Well, guess what? In 14 States if you were raped, 
you cannot get that care. That would violate the Hyde amendment in a 
sense when you cannot get access to it.
  Last week in the Rules Committee, Representative McCollum told the 
story of a woman in Texas who was told by her doctor that she would not 
perform a surgical procedure to remove a dead fetus because of the 
State's abortion ban. That servicewoman did not have the options she 
was entitled to.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the 
2023 New York Times article: ``As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians 
From Red States, Maternity Care Suffers.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

                [From the New York Times, Sept. 6, 2023]

 As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians From Red States, Maternity Care 
                                Suffers

                        (By Sheryl Gay Stolberg)

       One by one, doctors who handle high-risk pregnancies are 
     disappearing from Idaho--part of a wave of obstetricians 
     fleeing restrictive abortion laws and a hostile state 
     legislature. Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, a family doctor who also 
     delivers babies in the tiny mountain town of McCall, is among 
     those left behind, facing a lonely and uncertain future.
       When caring for patients with pregnancy complications, Dr. 
     Gustafson seeks counsel from maternal-fetal medicine 
     specialists in Boise, the state capital two hours away. But 
     two of the experts she relied on as backup have packed up 
     their young families and moved away, one to Minnesota and the 
     other to Colorado.
       All told, more than a dozen labor and delivery doctors--
     including five of Idaho's nine longtime maternal-fetal 
     experts--will have either left or retired by the end of this 
     year. Dr. Gustafson says the departures have made a bad 
     situation worse, depriving both patients and doctors of moral 
     support and medical advice.
       ``I wanted to work in a small family town and deliver 
     babies,'' she said. ``I was living my dream--until all of 
     this.''
       Idaho's obstetrics exodus is not happening in isolation. 
     Across the country, in red states like Texas, Oklahoma and 
     Tennessee, obstetricians--including highly skilled doctors 
     who specialize in handling complex and risky pregnancies--are 
     leaving their practices. Some newly minted doctors are 
     avoiding states like Idaho.
       The departures may result in new maternity care deserts, or 
     areas that lack any maternity care, and they are placing 
     strains on physicians like Dr. Gustafson who are left behind. 
     The effects are particularly pronounced in rural areas, where 
     many hospitals are shuttering obstetrics units for economic 
     reasons. Restrictive abortion laws, experts say, are making 
     that problem much worse.
       ``This isn't an issue about abortion,'' said Dr. Stella 
     Dantas, the president-elect of the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ``This is an issue about 
     access to

[[Page H4397]]

     comprehensive obstetric and gynecologic care. When you 
     restrict access to care that is based in science, that 
     everybody should have access to--that has a ripple effect.''
       Idaho doctors operate under a web of abortion laws, 
     including a 2020 ``trigger law'' that went into effect after 
     the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to 
     abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade last year. Together, they 
     create one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation. 
     Doctors who primarily provide abortion care are not the only 
     medical professionals affected; the laws are also impinging 
     on doctors whose primary work is to care for expectant 
     mothers and babies, and who may be called upon to terminate a 
     pregnancy for complications or other reasons.
       Idaho bars abortion at any point in a pregnancy with just 
     two exceptions: when it is necessary to save the life of the 
     mother and in certain cases of rape or incest, though the 
     victim must provide a police report. A temporary order issued 
     by a federal judge also permits abortion in some 
     circumstances when a woman's health is at risk. Doctors 
     convicted of violating the ban face two to five years in 
     prison.
       Dr. Gustafson, 51, has so far decided to stick it out in 
     Idaho. She has been practicing in the state for 20 years, 17 
     of them in McCall, a stunning lakeside town of about 3,700 
     people.
       She sees patients at the Payette Lakes Medical Clinic, a 
     low-slung building that evokes the feeling of a mountain 
     lodge, tucked into a grove of tall spruces and pines. It is 
     affiliated with St. Luke's Health System, the largest health 
     system in the state.
       On a recent morning, she was awakened at 5 a.m. by a call 
     from a hospital nurse. A pregnant woman, two months shy of 
     her due date, had a ruptured membrane. In common parlance, 
     the patient's water had broken, putting the mother and baby 
     at risk for preterm delivery and other complications.
       Dr. Gustafson threw on her light blue scrubs and her pink 
     Crocs and rushed to the hospital to arrange for a helicopter 
     to take the woman to Boise. She called the maternal-fetal 
     specialty practice at St. Luke's Boise Medical Center, the 
     group she has worked with for years. She did not know the 
     doctor who was to receive the patient. He had been in Idaho 
     for only one week.
       ``Welcome to Idaho,'' she told him.
       In rural states, strong medical networks are critical to 
     patients' well-being. Doctors are not interchangeable 
     widgets; they build up experience and a comfort level in 
     working with one another and within their health care 
     systems. Ordinarily, Dr. Gustafson might have found herself 
     talking to Dr. Kylie Cooper or Dr. Lauren Miller on that day.
       But Dr. Cooper left St. Luke's in April for Minnesota. 
     After ``many agonizing months of discussion,'' she said, she 
     concluded that ``the risk was too big for me and my family.''
       Dr. Miller, who had founded the Idaho Coalition for Safe 
     Reproductive Health Care, an advocacy group, moved to 
     Colorado. It is one thing to pay for medical malpractice 
     insurance, she said, but quite another to worry about 
     criminal prosecution.
       ``I was always one of those people who had been super calm 
     in emergencies,'' Dr. Miller said. ``But I was finding that I 
     felt very anxious being on the labor unit, just not knowing 
     if somebody else was going to second-guess my decision. 
     That's not how you want to go to work every day.''
       The vacancies have been tough to fill. Dr. James Souza, the 
     chief physician executive for St. Luke's Health System, said 
     the state's laws had ``had a profound chilling effect on 
     recruitment and retention.'' He is relying in part on 
     temporary, roving doctors known as locums--short for the 
     Latin phrase locum tenens, which means to stand in place of.
       He likens labor and delivery care to a pyramid, supported 
     by nurses, midwives and doctors, with maternal-fetal 
     specialists at its apex. He worries the system will collapse.
       ``The loss of the top of a clinical pyramid means the 
     pyramid falls apart,'' Dr. Souza said.
       Some smaller hospitals in Idaho have been unable to 
     withstand the strain. Two closed their labor and delivery 
     units this year; one of them, Bonner General Health, a 25-bed 
     hospital in Sandpoint, in northern Idaho, cited the state's 
     ``legal and political climate'' and the departure of ``highly 
     respected, talented physicians'' as factors that contributed 
     to its decision.
       Other states are also seeing obstetricians leave. In 
     Oklahoma, where more than half of the state's counties are 
     considered maternity care deserts, three-quarters of 
     obstetrician-gynecologists who responded to a recent survey 
     said they were either planning to leave, considering leaving 
     or would leave if they could, said Dr. Angela Hawkins, the 
     chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
       The previous chair, Dr. Kate Arnold, and her wife, also an 
     obstetrician, moved to Washington, D.C., after the Supreme 
     Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
     Organization. ``Before the change in political climate, we 
     had no plans on leaving,'' Dr. Arnold said.
       In Tennessee, where one-third of counties are considered 
     maternity care deserts, Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung, a maternal-
     fetal specialist, decided to move to Colorado not long after 
     the Dobbs ruling. She grew up in the South and felt guilty 
     about leaving, she said.
       Tennessee's abortion ban, which was softened slightly this 
     year, initially required an ``affirmative defense,'' meaning 
     that doctors faced the burden of proving that an abortion 
     they had performed was medically necessary--akin to the way a 
     defendant in a homicide case might have to prove he or she 
     acted in self-defense. Dr. Zahedi-Spung felt as if she had 
     ``quite the target on my back,'' she said--so much so that 
     she hired her own criminal defense lawyer.
       ``The majority of patients who came to me had highly 
     wanted, highly desired pregnancies,'' she said. ''They had 
     names, they had baby showers, they had nurseries. And I told 
     them something awful about their pregnancy that made sure 
     they were never going to take home that child--or that they 
     would be sacrificing their lives to do that. I sent everybody 
     out of state. I was unwilling to put myself at risk.''
       Perhaps nowhere has the departure of obstetricians been as 
     pronounced as in Idaho, where Dr. Gustafson has been helping 
     to lead an organized--but only minimally successful--effort 
     to change the state's abortion laws, which have convinced her 
     that state legislators do not care what doctors think. ``Many 
     of us feel like our opinion is being discounted,'' she said.
       Dr. Gustafson worked one day a month at a Planned 
     Parenthood clinic in a Boise suburb until Idaho imposed its 
     near-total abortion ban; she now has a similar arrangement 
     with Planned Parenthood in Oregon, where some Idahoans travel 
     for abortion care. She has been a plaintiff in several 
     lawsuits challenging Idaho's abortion policies. Earlier this 
     year, she spoke at an abortion rights rally in front of the 
     State Capitol.
       In interviews, two Republican state lawmakers--
     Representatives Meqan Blanksma, the House majority leader, 
     and John Vander Woude, the chair of the House Health and 
     Welfare Committee--said they were trying to address doctors' 
     concerns. Mr. Vander Woude acknowledged that Idaho's trigger 
     law, written before Roe fell, had affected everyday medical 
     practice in a way that lawmakers had not anticipated.
       ``We never looked that close, and what exactly that bill 
     said and how it was written and language that was in it,'' he 
     said. ``We did that thinking Roe v. Wade was never going to 
     get overturned. And then when it got overturned, we said, 
     `OK, now we have to take a really close look at the 
     definitions.' ''
       Mr. Vander Woude also dismissed doctors' fears that they 
     would be prosecuted, and he expressed doubt that 
     obstetricians were really leaving the state. ``I don't see 
     any doctor ever getting prosecuted,'' he said, adding, ``Show 
     me the doctors that have left.''
       During its 2023 session, the Legislature clarified that 
     terminating an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy, a rare 
     complication, would not be defined as abortion--a move that 
     codified an Idaho Supreme Court ruling. Lawmakers also 
     eliminated an affirmative defense provision.
       But lawmakers refused to extend the tenure of the state's 
     Maternal Mortality Review Committee, an expert panel on which 
     Dr. Gustafson served that investigated pregnancy-related 
     deaths. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, a conservative group, 
     testified against it and later called it an ``unnecessary 
     waste of tax dollars''--even though the annual cost, about 
     $15,000, was picked up by the federal government.
       That was a bridge too far for Dr. Amelia Huntsberger, the 
     Idaho obstetrician who helped lead a push to create the panel 
     in 2019. She recently moved to Oregon. ``Idaho calls itself a 
     quote `pro-life state,' but the Idaho Legislature doesn't 
     care about the death of moms,'' she said.
       Most significantly, the Legislature rejected a top priority 
     of Dr. Gustafson and others in her field: amending state law 
     so that doctors would be able to perform abortions when the 
     health--not just the life--of the mother is at risk. It was 
     almost too much for Dr. Gustafson. She loves living in Idaho, 
     she said. But when asked if she had thought about leaving, 
     her answer was quick: ``Every day.''

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Because what has changed is that now we have 14 
States that have total bans on abortion, so we must do more to honor 
our commitment to our servicewomen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This is a 
question, Mr. Speaker, of readiness. That is what we believe in. That 
is what a Defense appropriations bill is. It is grounded in the 
readiness of the most powerful Armed Forces in the world. It is to 
ensure that they are ready.
  Unfortunately for the Defense appropriations, we are being forced to 
put this bill on the floor today by the majority. It is unbelievable 
that they would cut vital civilian positions when the department is 
struggling to meet its readiness goals.
  Civilians are a crucial part of ensuring that our men and women, our 
combat soldiers, are ready to serve around the world.
  These are hateful policies. They want to undermine and attack the 
LGBTQ+ community, who have served in valor. We know them well. They 
have served without question. They have worn the uniform without 
question.

[[Page H4398]]

  It is to stop a logistical provision that has nothing to do with 
abortion. It is to allow for that military person to receive 
reproductive medical services, which may come to be in many different 
facets; to ensure that someone is able to ensure the reproductive life 
that they may desire to have.
  How ludicrous is it in this emerging, wonderful, diverse Nation that 
many look to as a place and a bastion of freedom, that we would 
eliminate funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion; that we 
eliminate climate change to ensure that our vehicles are well equipped 
for the new generation; that we would not ensure, again, that our 
personnel, our families get the medical care that they desire?
  Mr. Speaker, what have we done in years past? We have provided 
Defense appropriations to be able to support our military. We now have 
a bill on the floor that is undermining our military. I am saddened by 
this. I am grateful for the Triple-Negative amendment that has been 
allowed to be in providing for breast cancer, and I look forward to 
that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing House 
consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act of 2024.
  I oppose the rule, and the underlying legislation, for the following 
reasons:
  1. The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the 
Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan 
and damaging policies under our noses.
  2. The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the 
Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who 
sit on the very committee this bill originated from.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to further promote a culture war, the Members 
who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.
  First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently 
employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the 
Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive 
healthcare regardless of their station.
  Women currently make up one in five members of our military.
  Denying them their previously promised ability to check their 
reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly 
irresponsible.
  The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention 
amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would 
strip away.
  Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly 
victimized by Republican agendas around the country.
  Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with 
respect and equality, which this bill does not do.
  This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for 
gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender 
dysphoria.
  Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a 
serious issue and has led to one in five transgender and nonbinary 
young people attempting suicide in the past year.
  Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect 
the wellbeing of all citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and 
ideologies.
  The language in this legislation would further embolden those who 
wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already 
facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.
  This is unacceptable.
  The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should 
not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not 
promote the diversity of our Nation but rather seeks to suppress it.
  This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way the 
sponsors of the bill sought to eliminate Critical Race Theory.
  Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this 
term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in 
education.
  Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the 
complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society.
  Critical Race Theory is not an attack on white people for their 
history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.
  Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of 
government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a 
complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash 
over the negative to present a false narrative.
  At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against 
Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate 
level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected 
accurately in the history of this multicultural Nation.
  Another issue with this bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt 
military equipment to be more climate friendly.
  Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and 
efforts.
  The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative 
source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.
  It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' 
fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States 
Army.
  This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as 
well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a 
net zero future.
  In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 
million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than 
most countries.
  But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to 
scale back on their emissions, certain Members in Congress want to 
limit their choice.
  One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the 
Jackson Lee amendment #233 that was made in order by the committee.
  The Jackson Lee amendment #233 seeks to allocate $10 million to fund 
triple negative breast cancer research.
  This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and 
women in the military, who are up to 20-40% more likely to develop 
breast cancer.
  I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden 
administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but 
there is still work to be done.
  This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day 
hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel 
affected by breast cancer.
  Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active-
duty service-men and -women along with veterans, such as enforcing 
accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, 
addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing 
authorization for triple negative breast cancer as well as post-
traumatic stress disorder.
  I am very proud of the work that Congress and I have done to address 
the health concerns of active-duty and veteran service-men and -women, 
but there are still improvements to be made.
  The men and women who are on the front lines or have already 
completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing 
issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not 
be one of them.
  While this amendment is important, the negatives of this bill vastly 
outweigh the positives.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Nobody is arguing against diversity in the military. The American 
military has actually usually been the leader in this area, whether it 
was desegregation or certainly addressing the inequities between men 
and women, and we haven't gotten it right, but I think broadly it has 
worked in the right direction and quite often ahead of the rest of 
society.
  The real problem here is we want to focus on training and weapons, 
not on culture wars. We think the administration has gone around 
Congress in some cases--the Hyde amendment being one of them. My 
friends have their lawyers, we have our lawyers. I guess they will go 
to court and sort that out.

                              {time}  1300

  There wasn't any consultation with the Congress, any discussion on 
this. That was a decision made unilaterally by the administration. I 
think Congress has every right to be consulted. They don't have money 
by their own right in the executive branch. They have what we give them 
for the purposes that are specified by the Congress of the United 
States. They don't get to just make it up on their own.
  I know there was at least some discussion back and forth where people 
warned: Don't open this door without a discussion and without a green 
light from Congress. That didn't occur, and so we are in this 
discussion.
  Now, over the course of reaching a bill, I suspect we will find some 
sort of solution or work it through one way or the other. I hope we do, 
because I don't think anything is more important, in what I think is a 
very dangerous world, than equipping, training, and preparing the men 
and women who protect us all.
  On that, we have a lot more common ground than division. Again, I 
think this was a choice by the administration. It provoked a response 
by Congress. We will try to work it through

[[Page H4399]]

by normal legislative means and see where we end up.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
  Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the negative 
impact that the restrictions on funding for travel to receive abortion 
services will have on our servicemembers and their families, women of 
childbearing years.
  Unfortunately, in the South, between New Mexico and Virginia, you 
have a ban on abortion. In some cases total, and in some cases there 
are exceptions for rape or the life of the mother, but the mother's 
life has to be on the verge of death. Unfortunately, in these States, 
they make no distinction between miscarriage management, and they apply 
to cases, like you heard, where there has been fetal demise and a 
miscarriage. If you do not remove the fetal tissue, then the mother can 
go septic and die. If she loses her amniotic fluid and you do not 
terminate that pregnancy, she can go septic and die.
  I represent a State that has over 170,000 Federal employees and 
130,000 Active-Duty military personnel. With the Hyde amendment in 
place, we are already telling pregnant people in that situation: You 
have to pay for that service yourself. Their insurance won't pay for 
it. Many hospitals will consider them uninsured and won't let them have 
those procedures in the hospital, so they have to go find a clinic 
which, in many cases, is getting harder.
  Now, if they are in a State that has banned abortion in that 
situation, they have got to, on top of that, pay to travel somewhere 
where they can get, in some cases, lifesaving care. In addition, we 
have seen that these abortion bans have led to fewer OB/GYNs in those 
States.
  How are we going to recruit women of childbearing years when we say 
to them: If you get the worst news ever in your life, that you have 
suffered a miscarriage or you have to choose between your life or 
continuing a pregnancy, when you are already willing to make the 
ultimate sacrifice to keep this country safe, you are on your own. That 
is what this bill with that amendment will do.
  Our servicemen and -women deserve better. In a country that already 
has an atrocious maternal mortality rate, this will lead to even more 
maternal deaths. I don't know how we are going to recruit the women 
that we need.
  I don't have enough time to talk about how the anti-DEI amendments 
will make it harder to recruit a service force that is as fully diverse 
as the country they serve, but this amendment, in particular, will be 
dangerous for our military servicewomen or families of our servicemen. 
That is why I ask that we vote against the rule.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our ranking member on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding so I 
can vent a little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I just saw a Roll Call story that is reporting that 
Republicans are pulling their continuing resolution today to weigh more 
cuts. I mean, are you kidding me? Their crummy CR contained an 8 
percent across-the-board cut in almost every program that helps people, 
everything from medical research, WIC, Head Start, housing. Even border 
security is cut by 8 percent. The only thing that is exempt is the 
military budget, the biggest bureaucracy in our government.
  They are okay with cutting fuel assistance for poor people by 65 
percent. Money to help people be able to heat their homes in the 
winter, they are okay with cutting that, but they believe you can't 
find one penny of savings in a missile system in the Pentagon with huge 
cost overruns. I mean, it is pathetic. As the Republican whip said: The 
patients are running the hospital around here.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is about a negotiation. My 
Republican friends can't even negotiate with themselves, and we have 11 
days to go before there is a shutdown, and they are going in the wrong 
direction. It has become more and more difficult to get to an 
agreement.
  Enough, I mean, enough. The Republican leadership of this House is 
incompetent. They are so incompetent; it takes my breath away. They are 
letting the clowns run the circus. It is time the Speaker of the House 
develop a spine and stand up to the most extreme elements on the 
Republican side and actually sit down and negotiate an agreement that 
deals with the reality of our government.
  The Republicans only control barely just one branch of our 
government, the House. The Senate is under Democratic control. The 
White House is run by a Democrat. You are going to have to negotiate, 
and you are moving in the wrong direction. Time is running out. Stop 
this nonsense. Get serious. Get to the negotiating table. Enough of 
this.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great affection and respect for my friend, the ranking member 
and formerly the chairman of the full Rules Committee.
  I will start where I began this debate. Remember, my friends, 
Democrats didn't finish the appropriations process on their side until 
December of last year, and Democrats controlled all three parts of 
government. They had the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, and 
they didn't get done until December. The year before that, they didn't 
get done until March of the year after.
  I wish the process went easier and smoother as well, but I don't 
think it goes much differently, regardless of who happens to be in 
control. I do think that we are trying to make some progress here.
  Now, my friends are worried about what is cut. They ought to be 
worried about what was spent. We are running a $1.7 trillion deficit. 
That deficit is bigger than the entire discretionary budget of the 
United States of America. It is not just bigger than the defense 
budget; it is bigger than everything.
  It got a lot worse when my friends controlled the executive branch 
and both houses of Congress. You did over $3 trillion worth of spending 
outside the normal appropriations process; $1.9 trillion for an 
unneeded American Rescue Plan when we were coming out of COVID, roughly 
$700 billion from the much-misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which even 
the President now says was misnamed because it really had to do more 
with climate change. That was money we didn't have, money that fueled 
inflation that made life worse for every single American.
  I don't even get to the knockoffs, like transportation bills that 
don't pay for themselves. I had voted for every other major 
transportation agreement in my time here, two of them under President 
Obama, but they paid for themselves either through gasoline taxes or 
ticket fees, what have you. Now, we have got a trillion dollars here, 
but it is not enough. We will just throw another several hundred 
billion dollars on in debt. We are paying for that now.
  I am not going to be critical of my party for trying to push down 
some of the spending; $1.7 trillion this year. You guys can't find 
anywhere to cut.
  Now you want to talk about defense? I am happy to talk about defense. 
My dad was a career noncommissioned officer at the height of the Cold 
War. You know what we spent on defense then? Fifty percent of the 
Federal budget, 9 percent of the GDP. You know what we spent during the 
great Reagan buildup? Six percent of the GDP, about a third of the 
Federal budget. You know what we spend today? About 3 percent of the 
GDP and about 15 percent of the budget.
  Believe me, there has been an explosion of domestic spending over the 
decades, largely driven by my friends, and it is unsustainable. We 
cannot stay on the path we are on.
  We can argue about this or that. I have a bill I would invite my 
friend to look at, try and go back and do with Social Security what we 
did in 1983 on a bipartisan basis. We need to start getting the 
spending under control. The spending that is driving us out of balance 
is largely not in the Pentagon. It is largely in entitlement spending, 
which I would be the first to say that both sides have been reluctant 
to deal with. Neither of the last two Presidents have been willing. 
This President actually voted for a Social Security commission that 
reformed and stabilized it when he was a Senator. Now,

[[Page H4400]]

the White House rules these things out. No, we can't talk about it, 
can't do it. By the way, his predecessor was exactly the same, so 
Republican and Democrat alike.
  I would love to be more restrained in the spending, and I think that 
is what my colleagues are trying to do, even when I don't always agree 
with the tactics they use. They are motivated in the right direction, 
which is to deal with a $1.7 trillion deficit.
  We are trying to make some appropriate decisions. Again, we work in 
the legislative process. I remind my friends, they control two-thirds 
of it. By the way, the Defense bill last year, which was passed almost 
exclusively with Democratic votes, the omni, to be fair, actually had a 
larger increase in the defense budget than my friends pushed, $45 
billion--I actually agree with that, by the way--than this year, where 
we are basically at the President's number.
  We can all play this game with numbers and what have you. Let's try 
to work toward a deal. I think we can get there, but I don't have any 
illusions it will be easy along the way. I certainly have seen both 
sides make missteps, in my view, in handling these situations over the 
years. I hope we don't do that again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think what Americans know is that for too long, Republicans have 
been protecting the rich and the corporations who do not pay their 
taxes. When we start talking about spending, we need to talk about what 
we are spending that money for.
  Democrats are investing in rural America. They are investing in our 
children. They are investing in our infrastructure. What are 
Republicans doing? Yes, they are adding to that deficit. Republicans 
put $2 trillion on that credit card in tax cuts for the rich.
  The leader they worship, Donald Trump, put $7.5 trillion onto that 
deficit. The very first bill they brought to the floor of this 
Congress, what did it add? $114 billion to that cut.
  That is what we need to talk about, not just how they want to cut 
investments and important things like heating for our families who need 
it, our seniors, and our veterans. What are they doing? They are trying 
to make sure that they don't have to tax the rich and wealthy 
corporations. Many, as we heard last night, don't pay anything in 
taxes.
  Yes, we do want to talk about Social Security. I am so glad the chair 
brought this up because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans often swear that they 
are not going to cut Social Security and Medicare. Last night, when we 
met on the continuing resolution, there is an 8 percent cut across the 
board for everything but defense and veterans. Their continuing 
resolution has a 66 percent cut to heating assistance. They have said 
border security is their top priority, but the very CR we are scheduled 
to consider cuts funding for DHS by over 8 percent.

  While they claim they won't cut Social Security and Medicare, their 
own continuing resolution, the language in the bill itself, 
demonstrates that nothing is sacred to them.
  I am going to offer my friends, my dear friends, a chance to show the 
American people that they are serious about preserving Social Security 
and Medicare.
  I urge you all to join us in defeating the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
provide for consideration of a resolution which plainly states that the 
people's House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that 
so many of my constituents, so many of your constituents, rely on.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Mullin) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
majority's manufactured shutdown threat. For this reason, I ask my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up 
legislation that commits to protecting vital programs, like Social 
Security.
  Our most vulnerable communities will suffer as a result of this 
shortsighted attempt to hold our most important Federal programs 
hostage. For example, my California bay area district is home to over 
127,000 senior citizens, many of whom rely on Social Security.
  Under a Republican shutdown, new applicants to the Social Security 
program wouldn't be able to enroll in this bedrock American program. 
While Social Security payments would continue during a shutdown, 
seniors would experience even more delays and lengthy phone queues when 
contacting the Social Security Administration. Many seniors already 
struggle to find help, and a Republican shutdown would only exacerbate 
this problem.
  Modern Republicans are playing roulette with essential constituent 
services and creating yet another manufactured crisis.
  I urge the majority to bring a serious bipartisan proposal to the 
table to prevent this avoidable crisis.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think what we need to do is look at this appropriations bill, look 
at where we are in our discussions about funding the government and 
recognize that nothing exists in a vacuum.
  Last night, as we were talking about the Committee on Appropriations, 
we were talking about the extreme cuts that are being made, and we know 
that our military, when they sort of show up at our bases, they are not 
showing up at a base that is not connected to the rest of the places 
they live in.
  In Clovis, New Mexico, where we have Cannon Air Force Base, and in 
Alamogordo, where we have an Air Force base, those communities are 
connected, and we need to recognize that the other bills that they are 
looking at are going to cut funding in a way that is going to hurt our 
readiness.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill is a good opportunity to talk 
about this. The bill that they have brought forward would fund world 
development programs, right? Nope. That is going to get cut. It would 
also cut nutrition to women, infants, and children. It would cut the 
funding we need for our ranchers and farmers.
  Indeed, the cuts that they are proposing would be $8 billion in cuts, 
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. This would bring the funding 
level for the Agriculture appropriations bill to a level not seen since 
2007.
  The bill would cut broadband programs by 23 percent. It would hurt 
something that is incredibly important to my district, which are rural 
electric co-ops that serve 268,403 residents. Well, those rural 
electric co-ops, they serve people throughout our districts, and they 
serve our military bases. We must fight these kinds of threats.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, we cannot talk about readiness; we cannot 
talk about what we need to do in this country to support our military 
if we don't talk about our servicemembers and what we must do to 
protect them and to respect them, because they are protecting us.
  So when we are talking about our servicewomen, we must remember the 
number of servicewomen who are serving. It is about 20 percent right 
now, and the number of women who are serving in those 14 States which 
have a total ban on abortion is significant. It is 80,000 women--80,000 
women, who, if something happens to them like what Representative 
McCollum discussed, they could die of sepsis.
  For those of us who have given birth, for those of us who have had to 
make really difficult decisions about our health and how we are going 
to deal with the complications of pregnancy, we feel it viscerally, 
because we know that it is such a wonderful thing to give birth, but it 
is such a dangerous thing to be pregnant.
  And what they would do to our servicewomen is deny them the ability 
to

[[Page H4401]]

go to a State like New Mexico when they want reproductive healthcare 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Today's rule will make in order the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024. It will provide full and 
complete funding for our national defense needs, ensuring that our 
servicemembers are fairly paid, and supporting the well-being of 
military families.
  It also makes certain that our troops will never face a fair fight by 
giving them every advantage possible. We make appropriate investments 
in the development and acquisition of weapons systems needed to 
preserve and defend freedom around the globe and restrict the Biden 
administration from forcing progressive ideology on the Armed Forces 
and circumventing the authority of Congress when it does so.
  Bottom line, the bill targets resources to its new core mission, 
protecting our homeland and security interests and making sure that our 
forces are the best trained, the best equipped, and the best prepared 
in the world.
  To my friends, it has been an interesting debate, as always. I enjoy 
exchanging observations with my good friend from New Mexico, and we 
strayed sometimes off this bill and off this rule.
  I do want to mention a couple of things. The rule, I think even my 
friends would agree, is a pretty robust rule. We are going to have 184 
amendments, a very thorough debate, so I look forward to that.
  Second, it is lost sometimes, but we actually basically fund the 
military at the level that the President requested, so those people who 
think it is over the top probably should have their argument with the 
White House as opposed to us. Personally, I would have liked to have 
done more, but we are going to go with the President's number, 
essentially.

  Finally, we do disagree about the manner in which the administration 
is using the military. We think they are advancing progressive ideology 
when they ought to be focused on weapons acquisition, training, and 
warfighting, and we think that ultimately weakens the country.
  We live in a very dangerous world right now. I would actually argue 
we are not spending enough on defense when we look at what is happening 
in the Western Pacific with China; when we look at what the Russians 
are doing, the acts they are engaged in, in Ukraine. I want a robust 
budget, and I want one that we come together on.
  In the end, I think we will be able to achieve that, and I look 
forward to working with my friends to accomplish that objective.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as 
follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 680 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New 
                                 Mexico

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1 (c) of rule XIX sha11 not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). 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.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________