[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 99 (Wednesday, June 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3730-H3736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8070, SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE 
  IMPROVEMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
      2025; RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 118-527 AND 
            ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1287 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1287

       Resolved, That 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. 8070) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2025 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year. The first reading 
     of the bill

[[Page H3731]]

     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. 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 
     118-36, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8070, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of 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, 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 further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B 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 40 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 in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8070 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, 
     as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5.  If House Report 118-527 is called up by direction 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary: (a) all points of order 
     against the report are waived and the report shall be 
     considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution 
     offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary shall 
     be considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of 
     order; and (2) the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on such resolution 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 the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of the resolution accompanying House 
     Report 118-527, the resolution accompanying House Report 118-
     533 is hereby adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules 
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1287, providing for 
consideration of three measures including H.R. 8070, the Servicemember 
Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2025, to be considered under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, provides for 
one motion to recommit, and makes 350 amendments in order.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of House Report 
118-527 and the accompanying resolution recommending that the House of 
Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland 
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly 
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule also provides that upon adoption of the resolution 
accompanying House Report 118-527, the resolution accompanying House 
Report 118-533 is adopted.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying 
pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 8070, the Servicemember 
Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2025.
  Madam Speaker, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, as well as the 
leadership of Ranking Member Adam Smith, the bipartisan fiscal year 
2025 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Armed Services 
Committee by a vote of 57-1. It significantly improves the quality of 
life for our servicemembers. It deters our adversaries, supports our 
allies, and focuses on our military readiness and our national 
security.
  According to several top national security officials, our country is 
facing serious threats to our democracy and freedom at levels that we 
haven't seen since World War II. It is imperative for our national 
security that our servicemembers and their families are supported and 
that they can focus on their mission.
  Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established the Quality of Life 
Panel to evaluate the quality of life of our servicemembers. The panel 
found that servicemembers' quality of life concerns are a major cause 
of low morale and family stress, which are undermining recruitment, 
retention, and military readiness.
  The National Defense Authorization Act puts our servicemembers and 
their families first and addresses many of the issues found by the 
Quality of Life Panel. The legislation improves servicemembers' quality 
of life by boosting compensation, improving housing, ensuring access to 
medical care, enhancing support for military spouses, and increasing 
access to childcare.
  Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and 
Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support 
our warfighters at home and abroad and to deter our adversaries.
  It is the NDAA's intent to ensure that our Nation's military is 
organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries. Communist 
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nations or terrorist 
groups must know that they will never succeed in a war with the United 
States of America. The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring 
lethality, defending Israel, securing our southern border, and 
providing oversight and accountability.
  To deter our adversaries, we must continue to modernize our military. 
The National Defense Authorization Act boosts innovation providing for 
the development and fielding of AI, quantum computing, and autonomous 
systems.
  The legislation also removes Communist China from our supply chain 
and prevents the Communist China spies from infiltrating our research 
institutions inside the United States of America.
  The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and supports our Indo-Pacific 
allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries.
  This legislation also supports our ally Israel as they defend 
themselves from Hamas terrorists by expanding U.S.-Israel military 
exercises while also fully funding cooperative missile defense 
programs.
  Additionally, Madam Speaker, the Armed Services Committee included 
language that saves our taxpayers over $30 billion by cutting 
inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.
  We live in the greatest free nation on Earth, and it is imperative 
that we support those who protect it. The fiscal year '25 National 
Defense Authorization Act is another step in that direction.

[[Page H3732]]

  Moving on to the resolutions recommending that the House of 
Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland 
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly 
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of February, 
Special Counsel Robert Hur released his report on President Biden's 
mishandling of classified documents that were discovered in his home 
and office in 2022.
  On February 27, the Judiciary and Oversight Committees issued 
identical subpoenas compelling production of certain documents, 
including audio and video recordings of Special Counsel Hur's 
interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter. These subpoenas 
were not complied with, Madam Speaker. The audio recordings were never 
produced. On May 16, the morning of the markup of the contempt report 
in the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, President Biden exerted 
executive privilege over those recordings.

  Madam Speaker, the audiotapes are the best evidence that the 
transcripts provided to the committee accurately reflect the true 
content. Additionally, President Biden waived any potential assertions 
of executive privilege when he released the transcript, and he has not 
set forth any valid basis for invoking executive privilege.
  Madam Speaker, the following things are true: The subpoenas were 
legally authorized. The subpoenas were not complied with.
  It is extremely clear: We wouldn't be here on the floor today 
discussing the matter if that was not the case.
  The American people deserve to know the truth. Even news outlets in 
this country, nearly a dozen, in fact, have sued for access to the 
recordings.
  Madam Speaker, Attorney General Garland has chosen not to comply with 
the subpoenas, and because of his choice, he must be found in contempt 
of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important 
pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, today's rule is a tale of two Congresses.
  On the one hand, we have the National Defense Authorization Act, the 
NDAA, which is a bipartisan bill, the result of good faith negotiations 
between Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee 
to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense. 
This NDAA accommodates the diverse interests of Members of the House in 
ways that, while inevitably not satisfying everyone on every point, 
represent compromises that ensure the bill can become law.
  Attached to this rule are two nakedly partisan and groundless 
contempt resolutions based on manufactured allegations, conspiracy 
theories, and bad faith arguments designed solely to smear President 
Biden in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
  In the first example, we see Congress at its best. In the second, we 
see Congress at its worst.
  First, the NDAA: The fiscal year 2025 NDAA is a solid bipartisan 
package designed to support our servicemembers and provide for our 
national defense.
  I applaud the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee 
for their evenhanded, bipartisan work to produce a bill that addresses 
priorities and concerns from all across the country. Like all 
negotiated bills, there are policies I agree with and disagree with, 
but that is how negotiation and compromise work.
  Of particular note is that this year's NDAA would implement long-
overdue reforms to improve military recruitment and retention, a 
growing concern as our armed services have struggled to meet recruiting 
targets over the past decade.
  The reforms in this bill are the result of an in-depth, bipartisan 
study led by Representatives   Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan into the 
factors impacting recruitment and retention. It should be no surprise 
that the main concerns facing our servicemembers are the same as those 
of many American families: wanting to earn enough to support a family 
and to afford good housing, childcare, and medical care.
  This NDAA increases pay and benefits for junior servicemembers. It 
fixes dilapidated military housing. It increases military housing 
benefits. It fully funds childcare assistance programs so that all 
eligible military families can receive the benefits. It strengthens 
programs to support military spouses.
  It is a disgrace that we have servicemembers living in poverty, 
servicemembers and member families who go hungry, and servicemembers 
who aren't able to take care of their children and families.

                              {time}  0930

  I am glad that the Armed Services Committee came together on these 
reforms. They will go a long way in fighting poverty and hunger and 
will encourage more people to enlist in military service.
  This NDAA also makes significant investments in our national defense. 
The bill funds a range of programs to support our domestic defense 
industrial base. These programs will help maintain and create jobs 
throughout the country and ensure that we can meet the demand for 
munitions and weapons systems to support our own military needs and 
those of our allies.
  Finally, this NDAA makes needed cuts to wasteful defense programs to 
keep the top-line spending in the bill at a flat 1 percent increase 
over last year's amount.
  All in all, while there are plenty of policies that I disagree with, 
the overall bill is solid and should garner the support of a large 
majority of House Members.
  However, despite the best efforts of our Armed Services colleagues, 
it looks like House Republican leadership has decided to politicize the 
NDAA, just as they did last year.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans made in order dozens 
of rightwing MAGA amendments that will poison the NDAA's bipartisan 
support. These amendments, many of which are likely to be adopted by 
the House's extremist Republican majority, would restrict access to 
abortion care for female servicemembers and block efforts to promote 
diversity and address discrimination in our armed services.
  In doing so, House leadership is, once again, politicizing one of the 
few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement in the House, while 
ignoring the real needs of those who serve our country.
  Last year, when House Republicans pulled this exact same stunt, it 
killed bipartisan support for the NDAA for the first time in decades. 
This week Republicans have decided to repeat that mistake.
  Additionally, last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected 
multiple bipartisan amendments to the bill. Republicans rejected an 
amendment from a Member of their own party to add 4,000 special 
immigrant visas to resettle our Afghan allies who supported our troops 
throughout that conflict and who we promised to protect.
  Republicans rejected another Republican amendment to adopt the Major 
Richard Star Act, which would fix a longstanding prohibition that 
prevents medically retired veterans from receiving their full earned 
benefits. That is a provision that has the support of over 300 Members 
of this House.
  Republicans rejected a bipartisan amendment to provide cancer 
screenings for civilian DOD firefighters, who have been 
disproportionately exposed to cancer-causing PFAS forever chemicals. 
These screenings would help detect cancers early and save lives.
  Lastly, Republicans rejected an amendment that would ensure that 
female servicemembers, who place their lives on the line for their 
country, would have the freedom to access reproductive healthcare when 
they need it.
  Republicans rejected these sensible amendments, prioritizing over two 
dozen partisan culture war amendments, including amendments to relocate 
a Confederate monument back to Arlington National Cemetery and to 
defund DOD efforts to remove white nationalists from our military.
  In rejecting other amendments, our Afghan allies, our veterans, our 
firefighters, and women servicemembers have to take a back seat to the 
MAGA

[[Page H3733]]

extremists' culture wars. That is shameful. It is bad leadership, and 
it is clear that House Republicans have the wrong priorities for our 
servicemembers, our veterans, our national security, and our country.
  Madam Speaker, whereas the NDAA, absent the toxic amendments, 
represents the possibilities of a functional legislative process and 
bipartisan negotiation, the rest of this rule represents the worst 
parts of this Chamber.
  Since the first day of the 118th Congress, Republicans have spent the 
past year and a half spreading lies and conspiracy theories about 
President Biden and denying or making excuses for the misdeeds of their 
presumptive Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump.
  A year and a half of investigations, depositions, written testimony, 
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and they haven't turned up 
any credible evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden or his 
administration.
  In fact, they have conclusively proven what the world knows: that 
President Biden has not committed impeachable acts.
  While House Republicans have been confronted repeatedly with this 
reality, they have doubled down, wasting the time and money of three 
separate congressional committees on a wild goose chase that has turned 
up exactly zero evidence of wrongdoing.
  I will make sure we understand just how backward the House 
Republicans' priorities are. At a time when the Nation has been dealing 
with high costs, devastating national disasters, and wars in Europe and 
the Middle East, Republicans have wasted tens of millions of taxpayer 
dollars, thousands of hours of staff time, and weeks of valuable 
committee and floor time to pursue completely fabricated allegations 
against this President, and all of their wasted time and money has 
turned up nothing.
  Rather than concede defeat, Republicans have manufactured this 
baseless contempt resolution against the Attorney General. Everything 
our Republican colleagues are saying about these contempt resolutions 
is smoke and mirrors, designed to distract attention from the criminal 
conviction of former President Trump by a jury of his peers and a 
desperate attempt by Republicans to save face after their failed 
investigations, their failed legislative agenda, and their failure to 
represent the American people.
  There is no wrongdoing, no crime, no impeachable offense. The 
President and the Attorney General have done nothing wrong.
  Madam Speaker, I honestly don't know who is tuning into C-SPAN at 9 
a.m. on a workday to watch a rules debate, but I guarantee that most 
Americans could care less about the nonsense we are hearing from the 
other side of the aisle about this contempt resolution.

  Americans care about real issues. They care about the prices at the 
grocery store, access to quality healthcare and childcare, and whether 
their kids will be safe on the way to and from school. It is clear that 
the Republican majority has not done anything to address those issues. 
Many Republican Members have acknowledged as much right here on this 
floor.
  House Republicans have wasted a year and a half fighting with each 
other and falsely smearing President Biden in order to provide cover 
for the twice-impeached felon who leads their party.
  They can't even pass their priority bills, and thank God they can't, 
because their agenda would be disastrous for our civil liberties, our 
economy, and our national security.
  Day after day, all we get from House Republicans is messaging, 
talking points, and a whole lot of hot air. Despite everything, 
Democrats remain ready to work for the American people. We have stepped 
into the breach multiple times in the past 18 months to negotiate and 
cut deals with Republicans to save our economy from default, fund the 
government, protect our allies, and provide humanitarian aid where it 
is needed most.
  We stand ready to advance real solutions for the American people. 
That offer is always on the table for Republicans who want to take it 
up. As these contempt resolutions make clear, House Republicans have 
shown us time and again that they would rather fight partisan culture 
wars and stir up chaos and fear than work for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the 
Office of President.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the following things 
remain true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were 
not complied with.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), my friend and the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
certainly want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia on leading 
his first rule as a member of the Rules Committee.
  While he is the newest member of the Rules Committee, he is a 
seasoned veteran when it comes to the work of the Armed Services 
Committee. There is no one better to lead on our side for the NDAA 
reauthorization rule than the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin 
Scott).
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the 
underlying measures. This was a major piece of work that came through 
the House Armed Services Committee, and it came through with input from 
Members on both sides of the dais. It was truly a significant product 
that passed nearly unanimously in the House Armed Services Committee.
  Every day, thousands of men and women don the uniform, sacrificing 
time, risking their lives, and inconveniencing their families to defend 
us and our Nation. The debt of gratitude we owe them and their families 
can never be repaid. Advancing this legislation is the least we can do 
to support them and give back to them.
  Simultaneously, this legislation continues to counteract threats from 
the Chinese Communist Party and our other adversaries by ensuring our 
weapons, our equipment, and our cyber capabilities are, indeed, 
unmatched. Through the development of indispensable weapons technology 
and through increasing the lethality of our warfighters, the NDAA 
intercepts the Biden administration's soft international strategy and 
puts international security at greater risk.
  It is imperative for the House of Representatives to support this 
bill as it maintains our commitment to our servicemembers and their 
families.
  Acknowledging that the contempt resolutions are, indeed, included in 
this rule, I sat through the lengthy debate in the Rules Committee 
yesterday hearing from the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee 
and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The arguments 
sometimes became almost Shakespearean in their efforts.
  The old line, I think the lady doth protest too much, when that 
degree of protestation occurs, you have to ask yourself what in the 
heck are they hiding. It is almost as if the American public needs to 
see this information and make their own decision.
  The American public, unfortunately, has lost a lot of confidence in 
the Federal Government and its agencies because of that very lack of 
transparency. It is not just on this issue, but it is on a number of 
issues.
  I think it is incumbent upon us to make the information available to 
the American people, trust them to use their good judgment and make the 
right call on that.
  Republican Members will always support our national defense personnel 
with the tools they need to do their jobs, to do them well, and to come 
home and come home to a secure Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and support the men 
and women in uniform.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, we are all very grateful to the House 
Armed Services Committee for the bipartisan product that they have put 
forward here, but as we said before, it is the inclusion of multiple 
poison pill amendments all put forward by extremists from the House 
Republican majority and the failure to include both bipartisan and 
Democratic amendments that are really empowering both this rule and 
this bill.

[[Page H3734]]

  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure 
every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, 
including abortion care.
  Following the abhorrent Dobbs decision, which ended the protections 
for reproductive rights provided by Roe v. Wade, many States have 
enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which Republicans 
have declared numerous times is their goal.

  Reproductive healthcare is vital, and denying these rights to 
millions of women around the country and our servicemembers and their 
spouses is shameful and dangerous. That is why House Democrats are 
fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who 
simply want to access and provide needed care.
  H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act will prevent States from 
trampling on women's constitutional rights and keep fundamental 
healthcare services available across the country.
  Madam 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 Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) to discuss this proposal.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Scanlon for her 
work on the Rules Committee, for her focus on this issue this morning, 
and in response as to what we would do with the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I have just returned to Washington from my home State 
of Texas where I am sorry to report that the healthcare crisis we have 
been experiencing has only gotten worse. Pregnant women in crisis, 
having miscarriages, having complications that put their health and 
their lives at risk, are being turned away from hospital emergency 
rooms because the extreme laws that our State legislators have passed, 
banning abortion of just about any kind.
  Doctors and hospitals have asked for clear guidance about when and 
how they can take care of these patients, these American citizens who 
are suffering in Texas and States like it that have passed similar, 
vague, extreme laws criminalizing doctors, women, and pregnancy itself.
  Pregnant women have limited to no access to care and even to 
information. This puts their lives and health at risk, including their 
ability to have children in the future.
  Pregnant women have shown up at emergency rooms only to be told to 
come back later when they are closer to death. Closer to death is the 
standard in Texas. Let's think about that.

                              {time}  0945

  We have cities and towns passing ordinances saying that women cannot 
drive through those cities if they are headed to New Mexico or to other 
places where they can get abortion care, if perhaps that is their 
purpose in traveling through.
  Despite requests for clear guidance about what the Texas law means, 
neither the State of Texas nor the Texas Supreme Court will provide it, 
leaving women and doctors to risk jail time and more to get the 
healthcare that they need.
  More than 50 years ago, a similar patchwork of restrictions in 
different States led women and doctors' groups to petition the courts 
to guarantee the right of Americans to make their own fully informed 
decisions about whether, when, and how to be pregnant.
  They challenged the Texas law in a case brought by two young Texas 
women that went all the way up to the Supreme Court, a case we know as 
Roe v. Wade, which set out a framework to protect the health, privacy, 
and dignity of women in America.
  Madam Speaker, 2 years ago this month, the Supreme Court reversed 
that 50-year precedent. The chaos that has followed will continue until 
this Congress acts, and we must. We must pass the Women's Health 
Protection Act, a bill to restore the framework that Americans have 
relied on for the last 50 years, providing a Federal statutory right to 
reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, free from medically 
unnecessary restrictions.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can bring up the Women's Health Protection Act 
today. We passed it in the last Congress twice. We have to pass it 
again and get it to President Biden's desk so that we can protect the 
health, privacy, dignity, and freedom of American women.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today and the 
underlying legislation that will ensure that our Department of Defense 
stays laser focused on military readiness, supporting our 
servicemembers and their families, and keeping our greatest adversaries 
in check.
  For years, this administration was allowed to waste hundreds of 
millions of dollars of taxpayer money to force a woke agenda on the men 
and women of our military; hobbling their training, their morale, and 
their long-term success, all while our greatest adversary, China, 
relentlessly developed its own military, including even pulling ahead 
of us in the development of hypersonic missile technology. Today, China 
possesses hypersonic missiles that can hit our shores, but we do not 
yet have the capabilities to completely deter this particular threat.
  The legislation under the rule before us today focuses key resources 
on this technology, part of which is developed right in my own district 
in New York's southern tier.
  We cannot delay this any longer, and we cannot effectively secure our 
Nation and deter our adversaries, including China, without ridding our 
Nation's military of the radical left Green New Deal agenda that they 
seem to embed in our defense policy moving forward.
  This policy of battery-powered vehicles harnessed by resources 
sourced from a supply chain dependent on Communist China leaves our 
Nation less secure and more vulnerable than ever before.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to the Biden 
administration's transition to electric noncombat vehicles in our Armed 
Forces as a win for the environment, but I ask them: Is it really a win 
for the environment if we source these critical minerals from strip 
mines in Congo and transport them across the globe to be refined in 
countries that ignore many of the environmental regulations that we 
take for granted here in the United States?
  Are we really protecting the environment when we foist inefficient, 
unreliable vehicles on our Nation's military while China and India 
build hundreds of new coal power plants every single year?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the answer, but 
they would rather push their false, fairytale narrative that these 
policies are going to reduce global emissions to score political 
points.
  They ignore the dangerous situations that these policies ultimately 
put our military servicemembers in. We need commonsense policies that 
focus on merit, lethality, and readiness to shape our military in the 
coming years, not the woke dreams of a radical left that would prefer a 
country to not have a military at all. We certainly know that they 
don't believe that we should have a border, as the policies of the 
Biden administration have so thoroughly illustrated to the American 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule before us today and help 
pass another bold, focused, and crucial NDAA that will support our 
servicemembers and ensure that the U.S. military remains the strongest 
fighting force on the face of the Earth.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Goldman).
  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding the time.
  I rise today with a warning for my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. You are setting a very dangerous

[[Page H3735]]

precedent by trying to hold an Attorney General who has provided all of 
the substance requested in a subpoena in contempt.
  Let's be very clear: This precedent that you are setting is one that 
your own former President and Cabinet Secretaries repeatedly violated 
in the last administration.
  In 2019, the former President famously said that he would defy all 
congressional subpoenas, and then he did just that during the 
impeachment inquiry. The State Department refused to turn over a single 
document.

  Under your precedent here with Attorney General Merrick Garland, who 
has provided everything that you have asked for except for the audio 
recording of an interview with President Biden and the special counsel, 
you are moving into dangerous territory.
  There is no legitimate legislative purpose to require the Attorney 
General and the Department of Justice to turn over the audio recording 
of an interview of which they have already turned over the transcript.
  Now, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use 
explanations such as demeanor evidence and character evidence. That is 
all well and good if you are considering whether or not to prosecute 
President Biden, but that is not the job of Congress.
  There is no legitimate legislative purpose in figuring out ``demeanor 
evidence'' as to how President Biden sounded when you have the 
information.
  It is particularly galling that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are going to try to hold the Attorney General in contempt for 
this narrow, narrow issue when he has substantially complied with the 
subpoena, when five of my Republican colleagues completely defied 
lawful congressional subpoenas last time, including the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  You are setting a dangerous precedent, and, you, my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, ought to think twice because what goes around 
comes around.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the following things are 
true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were not 
complied with.
  I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the words ``except for'' are 
even being used by my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. People don't have the option to comply partially with a 
subpoena. Nobody in this country does.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my 
friend.
  Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8070, the 
Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.
  As the longest-serving enlisted member of the military in the history 
of Congress, I bring a very unique perspective to this problem set, and 
I get the chance here to stand and speak about the differences that we 
may share when it comes to sending billions of dollars to other 
countries for them to fight their wars.
  We can have that discussion, and I respect both sides of that 
argument, but nobody in this body can reasonably argue that any member 
of the United States military should be living below the poverty line 
as they defend our freedom and the very House that we stand in today 
debating this bill.
  To frame the problem that our servicemembers face, a civilian can 
apply for an entry-level position job at a convenience store in my 
district and receive higher compensation than if they were to join the 
United States military. As I was serving as an Active-Duty Navy SEAL 
being shot at in combat, my wife was standing in line to buy food 
products using WIC coupons. I simply view this as unacceptable.
  In addition to my experience as a servicemember, I serve on the 
Agriculture Committee. As we were debating the farm bill, we were 
talking about additional SNAP benefits for members of the military.
  That is just the symptom. The root cause is that the DOD brass and 
previous Congresses have been relying on welfare to subsidize American 
servicemembers' salaries so that they could expend these moneys on 
different parts of the defense industry.
  This has caused the enlisted pay gap to become a chasm and is the 
antithesis of military leadership. Our junior enlisted have been taken 
for granted for too long, and it is only exacerbated by Bidenomics, 
which is creating an inflationary environment that is crushing the 
entire Nation.
  The first truth of the Special Operations Forces is that humans are 
more important than hardware, and this bill embodies this truth by 
including a historic 19.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted, 
marking the most significant raise in history.
  Unfortunately, President Biden has not included this pay raise in his 
budget, and I find it wholly contemptible that someone, the President 
specifically, who has managed to become a multimillionaire on a public 
servant's salary, would snatch the food out of our junior enlisteds' 
mouths as they stand in the breach, protecting his very life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. VAN ORDEN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to have many of my 
provisions included in this NDAA that will ease the servicemembers' 
transition from Active Duty to becoming a veteran, and I thank Chairman 
Rogers for his work and support on this. I will continue to champion 
these initiatives and will continue to fight to support our 
servicemembers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I do agree with some of the gentleman's comments about 
the need to increase pay and benefits for our junior servicemembers and 
service families, but I have to strongly disagree with his attempts to 
turn this into an attack on the President.
  We have seen multiple reports from experts talking about the 
challenges that our servicemembers face, and the challenges we see to 
recruitment are because our economy is so strong that people have other 
better-paid and better-resourced opportunities under the current 
economy than they have for years. That has been suppressing recruitment 
and retention, so I think his economic analysis is a little off.

  I did think when he was getting up here, he might be here to speak 
about some of his amendments that were not being made in order. Last 
night, the majority of the Rules Committee, the Republican majority, 
voted unanimously to disallow amendments that would protect our Federal 
firefighters from cancer-causing PFAS chemicals.
  These were bipartisan amendments, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
was a cosponsor of them, so I assumed that when he was here today, he 
was here to speak against the rule. I think perhaps that is the best 
choice until we have a more bipartisan approach to the amendments that 
should be made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, yesterday in Rules, we had a rare 
but wonderful moment of bipartisanship as we considered the NDAA.
  Republican Chair Rogers and Democratic Ranking Member Smith spoke in 
harmonious unison about the benefits of the bill, which increases pay 
for junior enlisted members of our Armed Services by 19.5 percent.
  It invests in childcare, healthcare, and job opportunities for their 
spouses, which are especially important for rural bases like the Cannon 
Air Force Base, which is in my district.
  Remember, these bases are often in rural districts because cows don't 
complain when those planes make a lot of noise flying overhead.

                              {time}  1000

  These benefits are essential as we battle low recruitment levels. We 
must

[[Page H3736]]

treat our servicemembers with the same dignity and respect that they 
offer our country and our flag.
  Last year, however, I might remind us that we had a similar 
bipartisan bill come to Rules, which was then weighed down by poison 
pills added as amendments on the House floor. These amendments had to 
be taken out in the Senate.
  This year, we once again see many proposed amendments adopted in this 
rule which are seen as poison pills by so many. These amendments would 
block servicewomen's access to reproductive healthcare and abortion.
  As the planet faces more extreme storms, one of the amendments would 
prevent our military from combating the climate crisis and building 
resilience for our bases as sea levels rise.
  Madam Speaker, I want to speak to an amendment that was left out of 
the rule. Our Republican colleagues blocked a vote on the bipartisan 
amendment to extend and expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 
an amendment offered by Republican Representatives Moylan and Wagner, 
myself, and many others.
  For 30 years, the United States has provided a one-time payment to 
some of the Americans who were exposed to radiation from the U.S. 
Government's nuclear testing program and developed cancers or other 
diseases.
  For reasons no one can explain, RECA left out many communities that 
were downwind from these nuclear explosions, like New Mexico, where the 
first atomic bomb was exploded, or the communities where the nuclear 
waste from the Manhattan Project leaked into the water and soil in 
Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. It left out the workers who 
cleaned up the radioactive sites from this nuclear testing program, 
which was essential for our defense. Uranium miners, including those 
who worked after 1971 in Texas, Wyoming, and North Dakota, were left 
out.
  Republicans and Democrats represent these communities that share a 
common bond of grief and illness. Our RECA amendment would provide 
justice to these communities and make sure they are eligible. It would 
also extend the program for 5 years, since it has now expired.
  Some will say we can't do this because of the cost, but the cost has 
already been paid in cancer diagnoses, medical bills, and death. The 
government assumed this cost when it started our nuclear testing 
program, when it first poisoned those unwilling Americans. The 
government recognized it should pay this cost when it first passed 
RECA.
  Our ask is simple today: Please let every person harmed by this 
national defense program receive the same compensation. Blocking a vote 
on our bipartisan RECA amendment is walking away from the opportunity 
to do right by these communities that we have hurt.
  RECA expired on Monday. Every moment that Congress fails to act is a 
moment when another downwinder or miner might get a cancer diagnosis, a 
moment where a son or daughter may start to plan a loved one's funeral. 
We cannot wait to do what is right any longer.
  While the moment to vote on an amendment to this NDAA may have 
temporarily passed in the House, we are asking Speaker Johnson to let 
the House vote on the Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization 
Act that the Senate already passed by a 2-1 margin.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  As you may have guessed, I strongly oppose this rule. The rule likely 
guarantees that there will not be bipartisan support for the NDAA, and 
like last year, this means that the House will get steamrolled by the 
Senate.
  As we have discussed this morning, the two contempt resolutions 
included in this rule are not a serious legislative effort but a 
manufactured dispute between House Republicans and the Attorney 
General, which threatens to undermine rather than promote the rule of 
law.
  We would be a lot better off with a clean rule for the NDAA, stripped 
of all the partisan nonsense, so we can focus on our core 
constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
  Conducting oversight over our Armed Forces and funding our national 
security are two of Congress' most important responsibilities, but the 
kind of politicization we see from the House Republicans is 
disrespectful to the American people, unbecoming to this Chamber, and 
signals to our servicemembers that we don't have their backs when they 
need it the most.
  As the NDAA goes to the floor this week, I call on my colleagues to 
reject the poison pill amendments that have been presented and maintain 
the bill's bipartisan support.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question 
and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time to close.
  This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in 
the House of Representatives.
  The fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act fully 
authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while 
eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs. It strengthens our 
military and makes important steps to address the security threats 
America faces from our adversaries, including China, Iran, and foreign 
terrorist organizations.
  It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our 
ally Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern 
border.
  Critically, Madam Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of 
life of our servicemembers and their families, who sacrifice so much to 
defend us. Madam Speaker, it provides a 19.5 percent pay raise for our 
junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all 
other servicemembers.
  Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House has the responsibility to 
protect its Article I authority to conduct oversight and 
investigations. This week, Attorney General Garland has a choice: 
either comply with the lawfully issued subpoenas completely and turn 
over the tapes or be held in contempt.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on 
the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 1287 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

       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 
     bill (H.R. 12) 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 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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 12.

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Illinois). 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. SCANLON. Madam 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________