Supporting the goals and ideals of the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for my amendment that will take an important step toward restoring congressional war powers. This amendment will bring our unauthorized military presence in Syria to a long overdue debate in Congress so we can ultimately do our constitutional duty to vote to authorize or reject military action.

Members on both sides of the aisle have long recognized the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 grant Congress the exclusive power to send our servicemen and -women into war.

Members of Congress are duly elected by their districts to represent them in Washington to vote and decide on legislation and determine how the U.S. uses the power of the purse and sword. Unfortunately, unauthorized military presence undercuts this role. A Member of Congress should never learn about an air strike from the news. This is why the American people must decide when and where we use our military might, and that decision is made through their congressional Representatives.

Ensuring that Congress continues to authorize military activity is not only about guardrailing good democracy, it is also about fiscal responsibility and integrity. Washington is known for military contractors lobbying for endless wars to ensure endless profits, even when our lowest paid servicemembers have to rely on food pantries to feed themselves and their families. That is a policy choice, and our bloated Pentagon budget compared to our investments in schools, healthcare, and jobs at home is a policy choice. Our military footprint extends across dozens of countries far from public scrutiny and accountability.

My bipartisan amendment, which I am honored to be joined by Representatives Khanna, DeFazio, Schakowsky, Blumenauer, Lofgren, Bush, Jones, and Cammack in offering, is a fundamental next step toward breaking that cycle.

This is a question of war and peace that should be debated and answered with a recorded vote in Congress.

This amendment does not take a position on substantive Syria policy questions. It merely requires this body to follow the Constitution, hold a debate, and vote to authorize military action. I hope that my colleagues will

agree our troops and the American people deserve to see this body hold that debate and then cast their vote.

Under the last administration, former President Trump made it clear that U.S. military troops in Syria were there to secure the oil, but explicit authorization from Congress was never obtained for that purpose.

I disagree with claims that the 2001 AUMF, which was about responding to the September 11 attacks, authorized our troops to engage in hostilities against these forces which nobody argues had anything to do with those attacks or to guard oil fields.

My colleagues who believe that the President does not need specific authorization to deploy U.S. military forces to seize Syria's oil in an unconstitutional war should just admit that to their constituents. They don't care about the duty of Congress, the Constitution, or the War Powers Act; and they certainly don't care that our military budget is even larger than our domestic budget.

I agree with President Biden who has called for a new era of relentless diplomacy and that U.S. military power must be our tool of last resort, not our first, and should not be used as an answer to every problem we see around the world.

One step in the right direction would be to restore war powers, which is the solution put forth in this amendment.

I honor and respect the incredible sacrifices made by our Kurdish allies. Nothing in this amendment supports abandoning the Kurdish people, nor do I personally support that. Let me be clear: this is simply a vote to restore the power of Congress in authorizing military presence in Syria. The current unauthorized U.S. military presence of indefinite duration means that the U.S. may pull troops with little warning and with little regard for what will happen once the troops are gone without a gradual release. Let's learn from the horrors in Afghanistan.

I want to have a transparent and vigorous debate in front of the American people on the role of the U.S. military in Syria. When we have that debate and vote, it may be that this body authorizes support for such a military action to support the Kurdish people.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, it is really cold. I don't know what y'all are planning in here, if y'all are planning on cutting hogs or not, but it is that cold. I just want you to know, for the record, some of the folks have complained, and I am one of them.

Mr. Speaker, Brazil and the U.S. have enjoyed a long and successful security relationship. Both partners work together to address regional security challenges, like terrorist activity along the tri-border area, countering narcotics trafficking, including narcotics destined for the United States, and the Venezuelan regime's destabilizing activities.

In fact, Brazil's military was one of the only Latin American forces to join Allied operations during World War II; a conflict in which my father took part in which my uncle lost his life.

This shortsighted amendment fails to recognize our partnership in addressing our national interests and regional stability.

It unnecessarily denigrates the reputation of one of three major non- NATO allies in Latin America.

It also threatens to curtail our long history of security, cooperation, including implementation of the DOD's Women, Peace, and Security Initiative.

The U.S. military has long worked with their Brazilian counterparts to address regional defense matters, premised on respect for democracy and human rights.

We must look for ways of broadening the extensive bilateral agenda to reach mutually beneficial outcomes.

Of course, I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I wonder why on Earth we would not have considered that in that committee, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, where it is very cold; very cold.

Mr. Speaker, in order to further bring the other party to its knees on this all-important issue, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this incredibly ridiculous amendment. There is a reason this is the last amendment. I feel like the opposing party is probably a little embarrassed that it is even being brought up, the fact that we are doing it so late.

It would repeal a provision that Democrats approved last year that simply requires the State Department to notify Congress before it spends thousands of dollars on art for United States embassies. Most of this art will never be seen except by the employees of the embassies.

Now, these same Democrats want to repeal this provision because they know there is absolutely no way they can justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars on art when inflation is at 9.1 percent, gas is nearly $5 a gallon, and our country is on the brink of a recession.

This isn't a new thing, though, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago, I found out the State Department spent 84,375 taxpayer dollars on a piece of artwork designed by Bob Dylan. That might have been a bargain if it was Hunter Biden's artwork, but it was Bob Dylan's.

During a government shutdown, while thousands of Federal employees were struggling to make ends meet, I thought that was sickening. I introduced a bill to prevent any tax dollars from being spent on art in United States embassies, but it still hasn't been passed.

Over the past year, the State Department notified us it wanted to spend over $400,000 on a sculpture of clouds in Montenegro, over $250,000 on a mural in Mexico City, $350,000 on a mosaic in Rio, and lots more. They should be spending zero, Mr. Speaker. Zero.

By the way, these purchasing decisions are made by an office that employs 15 people, and many of their salaries are over $100,000 a year, and that is a lot more than the average East Tennessean's salary, the people that I represent.

So the bill that my friend is presenting is sunsetting, is providing oversight in the spending of money, and you are denying Congress the oversight that we should have. We should have the purse strings, Mr. Speaker.

I am sick of hearing things like a million dollars here or there is not that much. Mr. Speaker, that is so elitist, and anyone who says that needs to check their privilege. A million dollars is a lot more than many of my hardworking constituents will see in a lifetime.

Our government cannot justify spending that much on art, and the Democrats know it. That is why we are trying to pass this amendment to get the State Department off the hook from reporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Pappas, or as it might be, the Pallone 399 amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, Mr. Pallone, for being here tonight.

This opportunity for us to speak deserves to be placed within the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which has the jurisdiction on this matter, the jurisdiction that is very important to the United States and to our friends from Greece. But it also is important to our friend Turkey, who stands, as a NATO ally, ready, prepared to help the United States and its NATO allies in the defense of a region of the world that is important.

It is important for us to note that the conversation about this really needs to take place within the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I think the chairman and the ranking member are very able to discuss it.

A report to Congress was made from this last prior administration that directly speaks about exactly the circumstances that Mr. Pallone speaks of. The United States Government sent this Section 211, PL 116- 94, and they said: ``The United States Government is not in a position to provide a list of confirmed violations of Greece's territorial airspace.''

This is a basis of what this amendment is about. First, Greece claims territorial space that extends up to 10 nautical miles from its coastline and its territorial sea up to six nautical miles. Under international law, a country's territorial airspace coincides with its territorial sea space also.

In this instance, Greece treats these differently. Although Greece currently claims up to 6 nautical miles of territorial sea around the many islands that it has, its neighbors have not come to a boundary delineation upon those areas. Thus, Turkey, which stands directly next to many of these islands, looks at international law.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize at this time, not just with the United States but with the war that is going on between Russia and Ukraine, that NATO be prepared to have its top- flight--not just fighters--but the equipment that would be necessary. I believe this discussion, although I recognize it was made in order by the Rules Committee, should be placed directly within the Foreign Affairs Committee.

There needs to be a discussion to resolve this between America's friends, Turkey and Greece, and depend on them to be able to resolve this matter, not put this into the National Defense Authorization Act, which does not have jurisdiction in this matter. We should not invoke the United States military into this when, in fact, it should be something that is done by the State Department.

I have great respect for the gentleman, Mr. Pallone. I have great respect for the Rules Committee, which I sat on for 20 years. But this issue entirely, from start to finish, belongs upon what might be the foreign sales of assets that are military oriented. That jurisdiction is not in the Armed Services Committee.

I stand in opposition, and I ask that the gentleman withdraw his amendment solely based upon a jurisdictional issue, the need for the United States of America, the need for NATO and Turkey, as a very reliable member, to be able to have those things that it would need.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for hearing our argument tonight, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman.

First of all, the congressional review of all arms exports is done through the Foreign Affairs Committee, not through the Armed Services Committee.

Secondly, it is in America's best interests. One argument could be made perhaps about Ukraine until Russia attacked. It is now a war that the United States is funding to huge numbers of appropriations amounts. There is great concern about not just food shortages but the destabilization of that area of the world.

We, the United States, as a major supporter of NATO, count on all the NATO nations there that are part of that to have the top-flight--not only equipment--but the ability to effectively avoid a further war by them working together.

I would say two points that the gentleman raised. First, the Armed Services Committee does not have jurisdiction, and secondly, it is very much in the United States' best interest to make sure that Turkey has top-line F-16 fighters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise in opposition to amendment No. 455. It is currently almost 2 a.m. here on the House floor and most Americans are asleep. In China, they are finishing up with lunch, and after the videos we have seen this week, it is possible that Hunter Biden is on to his second fix for the night. Sadly, we are here on the floor trying to sneak in land grabs to the NDAA.

This Federal land grab would lock up 400,000 acres in Colorado with no regard to the terrible consequences this would have on the constituents of Colorado's Third District.

The bill also seeks to permanently prevent responsible oil and gas production on nearly 200,000 acres. While Americans are paying record- high gas prices, while Biden is shipping our oil reserves to the Communists in China, Democrats here in the House want to lock up more of our oil and gas underground never to be seen or utilized.

Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the lands impacted by this amendment are in my district. Numerous stakeholders from the American Colorado Farm Bureau

to the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce all oppose the CORE Act. It is stuff like this that ticks the American people off, and it is why the GOP will have the majority in November.

There are reasons why the Senate rejected this bill outright. It is because the American people don't want it. I am proud to have worked with them last time we passed the NDAA to remove this from the final passage. There are good reasons why it is so unpopular.

The CORE Act threatened to accelerate wildfires due to its numerous wildfire designations and other provisions that restrict Federal agencies' ability to actively manage their lands. Are Coloradans supposed to simply stand by and watch more and more of our State get swallowed up in wildfires?

That is what this legislation would do.

Nothing good happens after midnight, and this bill is no exception. I do believe that my colleague from Colorado wants cleaner air and cleaner water. I would ask him to help me in managing our public lands rather than locking them down. We all want to be good stewards of the land that we have been given.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 456, an amendment that would add the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act into this year's NDAA.

This bill would add nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and permanently withdraw 1.2 million acres from mineral production. Democrats already locked down our businesses, they locked down our churches, and they locked down our schools. But that wasn't disastrous enough. Now they want to lock down our public lands.

Approximately 550,000 of those 1.5 million acres that will be locked up by these new wilderness designations are in my district. Over 55 percent of Colorado's Third Congressional District is already Federal land. The last thing that communities in my district need is further restrictions imposed by government limiting what they can do on public lands.

People back home impacted by this lands package have raised significant concerns ranging from the loss of recreation, the elimination of multiple use of the land, and the overall threats to local rural economies.

However, one of the biggest concerns in the Western States is the increased threat of disastrous wildfires that will result from the new wilderness designation and other land grabs in this bill. Wilderness is the most restrictive land use designation possible. It prevents active management in our forests which is critical to preventing catastrophic wildfires.

Placing my district under lock and key will prevent all Americans from being able to access the lands and experience our majestic purple mountains firsthand.

I have also visited the HAT facility in Eagle County. I have talked to our military pilots who would actually lose some of their land that they currently train over. This is a national security threat. They need that land to be able to train as they protect our country and then, of course, the 1,200 miles of river that would be designated wild and scenic, well, that is not fair.

That is in my district. I am not going to the gentlewoman's district and designating the 16th Street Mall wild and scenic, but I do believe we can all agree that it is pretty wilderness down there.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 860, which is a modified version of my bipartisan Stop the Chinese Communist Party Infrastructure Act.

There is a growing concern, and rightfully so, surrounding awards of costly and sensitive public works projects across the United States to companies affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, otherwise known as the CCP.

Bad actors have taken advantage of the availability of unaccountable Federal tax dollars. It is critical that Congress ensures that the Chinese Communist Party-linked entities do not receive these, or any other Federal funds for that matter, for primary or subcontracts to complete infrastructure projects in America or through the Department of Defense.

U.S. taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects should be held to a high standard of both quality and security. Public funds should not line the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party, which is engaged in a large- scale offensive against American national and industrial security or help fund the Chinese Government's continued human rights abuses.

While hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet, Federal, State, and local governments have awarded major public works projects to the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated entities who have in turn produced lackluster results and cost the American people billions of dollars in the aftermath. The United States must do more to stand up to Communist China, while simultaneously bolstering our domestic construction and manufacturing industries.

This is why I submitted the Stop Chinese Communist Party Infrastructure Act as an amendment to this year's National Defense Authorization Act. This important legislation prohibits the Department of Defense from using Federal funds to enter, engage in, or award public works contracts in the United States to entities headquartered in China or affiliated with the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party.

It is time for Congress to step up to the plate in support of American manufacturing and industry and against Communist China's gross human rights abuses and predatory trade practices.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I also rise today in support of other amendments introduced in this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The first amendment requires an assessment of the previous U.N. arms embargo on Iran as well as a report on what steps the Departments of Defense and State are taking now in the absence of the U.N. arms embargo to constrain Iranian arms proliferation.

The second amendment requires a report on the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps operatives abroad, including the ways in which the U.S. is working with other nations to counter the threat that they pose.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, and yet, the IRGC-affiliated officials continue to operate freely and openly in many foreign countries, often under the auspices of Iran's illegitimate diplomatic operations.

Even here in the U.S., the Iranian regime is reportedly continuing its efforts to plan and execute attacks against former senior government officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The time is now for the United States to increase cooperation with our partners and allies around the world to address and expose the full range of threats posed by Iranian operatives.

Finally, my last amendment requires a report on the threat of aerial drones and unmanned aircraft to U.S. military bases both here and abroad. Every U.S. military base and installation should be prepared to detect, disable, and disarm hostile or unidentified, unmanned aerial systems. Sadly, we know many are not.

My amendment will be a significant step forward to ensure that the Department of Defense has the resources it

needs to deploy unmanned traffic management, UTM systems, to protect our interests and personnel. The report is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support these amendments, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including these amendments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendments to the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act that will help save lives and promote the health and well-being of those who are serving or have served our country.

The CDC estimates that nearly 264,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and as many as 1 in 8 women will live with this disease at some point in their life. The American Cancer Society predicts that 43,250 women will lose their lives to breast cancer in 2022.

My colleagues must also understand that the plight of breast cancer is not an equitable one. Black women are more likely to die of breast cancer. In my home state of Wisconsin, black women with breast cancer have a mortality rate of 56 percent, far outpacing the death rate for white women according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

While treatment for this disease has evolved drastically, access to a conclusive, accurate, early, and expedient diagnosis remains challenging.

Mammograms are a basic screening tool to help try and detect breast cancer as soon as possible. However, for women with dense breasts, mammograms alone may not be sufficient to help identify breast cancer as dense breasts can make mammograms harder to accurately read. As a result, women with dense breasts may be called back for additional follow-up tests more frequently than others and dense breasts can also put women at higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer within 12 months of a normal mammogram result.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), nearly 50 percent of women over 40 who get mammograms have dense breasts and live with an increased chance of developing breast cancer, a risk that is separate from the effect of dense breasts on the ability to read a mammogram.

For individuals with dense breasts for whom additional testing may be needed to confirm breast cancer, even with insurance they may face additional costs for these potentially life-saving diagnostic screenings.

My amendment directs the GAO to examine current health policies at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to ensure that those with dense breasts can access additional cancer screenings without facing burdensome financial barriers. Cumulatively, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs provide healthcare to over 18 million American service members and veterans. My amendment would require GAO to examine whether existing VA and DOD programs provide beneficiaries with low-cost screenings and diagnostic tools needed to confirm breast cancer, especially when standard mammograms are inconclusive or ineffective. Additionally, GAO will be required to examine and provide recommendations on how each agency can improve their policies to address the unique challenges of identifying breast cancer in those with dense breasts.

We must do all we can to ensure that our veterans and active-duty personnel receive the highest quality care available. We can accomplish this by evaluating current policies and developing new ones that prioritize the health of those who serve or have served our country. While there is no cure for this disease, we can certainly do more to improve access to screening and treatment.

Additionally, I have offered an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that TRICARE includes programs and

policies to promote universal education on healthy relationships and intimate partner violence.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), around 1 in 4 women have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. Sadly, it can occur in every community, including our military community, to both men and women regardless of age, economic status, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

The amendment would require TRICARE to provide guidance to healthcare providers, health workers, and managed care entities to help educate and to establish routine assessment and screenings for signs of intimate partner violence.

I thank the Chairman for his support of my amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment would direct the President to establish an office of climate resilience within the White House to coordinate climate resilience activities across all government agencies.

As the climate crisis worsens, American communities are in desperate need of an office to increase the resilience of our communities.

As my colleagues well know, climate disasters are increasing in frequency and severity at an alarming rate. Just last week, a few of my colleagues and I visited Yosemite National Park, where climate change continues to fuel larger, longer, and more severe fires.

In the last 14 months alone, 20 percent of giant sequoias in Sierra Nevada were killed in wildfires. Not more than 48 hours after we left, a wildfire started that is still burning across 2,000 acres and endangering the park and the surrounding communities.

Last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that there were nine individual billion-dollar weather and climate events across the country during the first 6 months of the year alone, including severe drought, two tornado outbreaks, and dangerous hailstorms.

Last year, damages from these severe weather events totaled approximately $145 billion. These costs are felt by families across the country. These families lose their houses, all of their belongings, their livelihoods, and sometimes their loved ones in these disasters.

As the climate crisis worsens, this harm will be exacerbated by the lack of climate resilience planning.

There is immense work needed to make our communities resilient and safe from climate disasters. Thankfully, much work is underway. Over 20 Federal agencies have separate climate resilience action plans, but the United States lacks a robust, unified, national climate resilience action plan, and there is no overarching coordination between Federal agencies on this very important security issue. As such, these disjointed efforts are likely performing duplicative work without maximizing the potential benefit.

My amendment would establish an office of climate resilience to coordinate the various efforts currently going on across the Federal Government. The office of climate resilience in the White House would leverage the expertise available from all sectors involved in climate resiliency, including the knowledge and lived experiences of frontline communities.

The office would improve current climate resilience efforts throughout various Federal agencies and ensure that they are rooted in environmental justice as they protect and develop the climate resilience workforce.

The amendment will enable the United States to better prepare for and prevent future climate disasters and protect American families and our Nation's security while mitigating the destruction that natural disasters wreak on our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why the other side is so distraught about an Office of Climate Resilience, and I would love to hear my colleagues on the other side go and tell the people who have lost their homes in wildfires, who are flooded underneath enormous amounts of water that somehow that is not an interest of the Federal Government or even of our military to help protect.

By the way, the military does go into many of these communities when we have these big natural disasters. So it is absolutely about protecting the security of our country, and the reality is it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect these people.

Now, you can make up all kinds of things about why this climate change is not real, but let me tell you, experts around the world believe this is a national security issue. They believe it is real, and they believe we need to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, PFAS chemicals affect our drinking water, our crops, the air we breathe, and the products we bring into our homes.

As Members know, PFAS are a large class of chemicals that are highly persistent and mobile in the environment. They are commonly referred to as forever chemicals.

PFAS have contaminated more than 2,300 sites across 49 States, polluting the drinking water of an estimated 200 million Americans, including thousands of households in my home State of North Carolina and at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

Forever chemicals have been associated with a wide range of serious health effects, including a probable link with cancer, thyroid disease, lower fertility, and more. Over 500 PFAS are included on the Federal inventory of chemicals that can be used in commerce, but we know very little about what these chemicals are, where they are manufactured and used, and how the American people and our troops are being exposed.

Thankfully, after years of indecision, Congress took bipartisan action in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, directing EPA to complete a PFAS reporting rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The rule requires EPA to use its existing authority to obtain information about all PFAS manufactured since 2011, including their identity, where they are manufactured, total amounts produced, general categories of how they are used, and existing information on environmental and health effects.

We lack this information for virtually all of the PFAS that have been manufactured and released into the environment in our country, a critical blind spot that hinders our ability to understand the full scope of the challenge we face and how to protect the public and our troops.

Unfortunately, EPA's proposed rule contains a significant flaw. It defines ``PFAS'' far too narrowly, excluding hundreds of these forever chemicals, including some that have already been found in drinking water or that have been incinerated as waste around the country.

During the comment period, numerous stakeholders, including drinking water utilities, State environmental protection agencies, PFAS scientists, 17 State attorneys general, all urged EPA to use a broader definition in the final rule, with many advocating for the consensus definition recently adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A reporting rule that fails to capture the full universe of PFAS will deprive EPA, Congress, the States, and the public of information necessary to address the effects of PFAS effectively and efficiently.

My bipartisan amendment with Representative Mace directs EPA to use a simple definition of PFAS--one fully fluorinated carbon atom--that is consistent with the international definition.

A final PFAS reporting rule using the definition in our amendment will ensure that we have the full picture of the nature and extent of the PFAS effects, enabling Congress and the administration to formulate an effective plan of action to address these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that this is a reporting rule, it is not a regulation. It is more like a law requiring labeling on food and packaging, and it gives the public information about chemicals that affect their health. Our water resource agencies are asking for this. We are trying to clean up some of the effects.

In North Carolina, we are seeing this in the Cape Fear River. Again, it is affecting the health of our people and our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the public, in the comment period, has said that we need more information and a more robust definition.

It also belongs in the NDAA because it originated in the 2020 NDAA, and it has affected troops in North Carolina, particularly adjacent to the Cape Fear River.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my amendment to add the first six titles of the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act and, also, Congresswoman Leger Fernandez's bill to protect the Cerro de la Olla in her State to this year's NDAA bill.

Taken together, this amendment will preserve more than 1.6 million acres of public land across Colorado, California, Washington, and New Mexico and will add more than 1,000 miles of river to the national wild and scenic rivers system.

Preserving these pristine, untouched wilderness lands is about more than just protecting our environment. It is about protecting our economy, our way of life, and ensuring our Nation's top military pilots have the space they need to train.

Among the areas that would be protected under this measure are some of our Nation's most important military training grounds, including the high altitude aviation training sites in Colorado where some of our Nation's most elite helicopter pilots train to take on some of the harshest environments anywhere on this planet.

The areas to be protected under this amendment also play a key role in combating the climate crisis which the Pentagon itself has deemed a preeminent threat to our national security.

The designations in this bill were not drawn from a hat. They are the product of decades of work, and that is why this amendment has widespread support from every single area where that is included in this bill. That is why this Chamber has taken steps to pass it not once, not twice, but four times now in just the past 2 years alone including as a part of last the 2 years' NDAA bills.

Taking on the fight against the climate crisis and ensuring our Nation's military pilots have the space they need to train for some of the world's most difficult environments is something all of us should be behind.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just clear up a few of the pieces of misinformation that have come out about this bill tonight. The first one is that the HAT, the high-altitude training I talked about which is used by the military, is not supported by pilots.

Actually, the Colorado National Guard has issued a statement of support of this legislation because we do protect those training areas, and it is very important--it has been important ever since Afghanistan--to do that.

The second thing I want to talk about is that all of the economic studies have shown that more wilderness actually creates more jobs. So for people who are in rural communities in remote areas, when there is wilderness around them, the growing and new economy in the West is for more jobs in recreation and other industries.

Last but not least, the portion of this bill that is in my State of Colorado, the Colorado Wilderness Act, which is my bill, is about 660,000 acres. Those acres are almost all currently wilderness study areas. All the wilderness study areas are currently managed by the BLM as if they are wilderness.

These claims that are being made that there are going to be new fires, that there are going to be new problems, that is simply not true. We are taking something that has been a reality in those areas for 40 years and simply making it permanent so that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy those wonderful areas, so that we can stimulate the recreation economy, and so that we can protect those lands for preservation and for helping to address the climate issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make this short and hopefully sweet because I can't believe for a minute that we don't want to incentivize States to guarantee, at a minimum, the rights we have already established in the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act, which was passed in Congress unanimously in 2016.

This amendment is based on a bipartisan bill offered by myself and Congressman Kelly Armstrong and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and introduced by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley.

When we actually enacted the Survivors' Bill of Rights, it guaranteed certain rights for sexual assault survivors. Unfortunately, those rights only applied to Federal cases. This amendment makes further progress by incentivizing States to follow suit.

What we are debating here is really quite common sense: The right to have a rape kit if you are raped, the right not to be charged for it, the right to be notified if the government intends to destroy a rape kit, the right to be notified of the rape kit's results, the right to have the rape kit preserved for the statute of limitations or 20 years, whichever is shorter, and the right to be informed of the status and location of a rape kit.

Across the country, survivors are shocked to learn that their rape kits have been thrown out or they can't find them.

Again, we have done this on a Federal level. Congress has recognized the rights that are good enough for victims of Federal crimes should also be good enough for those who become victims of State crimes.

Again, this is a simple amendment. It is bipartisan. It is incentivizing, not demanding or requiring.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is really astonishing to me, as if servicemembers who are female, who are in States in which they do not have these benefits, should somehow be second-class citizens, I don't get.

We have a Parliamentarian who determines whether or not an amendment is germane to the NDAA. That has already taken place. So having this debate is irrelevant, because we have already established that it is germane.

I don't know about you, but I am not just legislating for the people of California. I am legislating for the entire country. That is my job.

If there is a sexual assault victim in a State where they don't have the resources to somehow provide the Survivors' Bill of Rights, we have already done this on a Federal level and we offer some incentive so they do it, I don't see how this is any different than the other programs we have that we continue to fund for local jurisdictions all across this country, whether it is the COPS program or anything else.

So I am flummoxed by this debate on the other side. It is not a laughing matter. It is very serious. I think sexual assault victims across this country would like to know that they have the same rights in States as those who are victims of Federal crimes when it comes to being able to access a rape kit, have it paid for, and being told what the results are. It is common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't short nor sweet, but I am prepared to close and say this is pretty obvious. This does not take rocket science. All we are doing with this amendment, that is bipartisan and bicameral--maybe the gentleman should talk to Senator Grassley. We want to encourage States to do what we have done on the Federal level.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, that my friend has brought up, seeks to include an attempt to remove something that is very needed and necessary among civil service. And I say to Mr. Connolly that this amendment coming within the NDAA, is a poor attempt at reversing something that is important to remain.

The legislation was written to override President Trump's executive order 13957, as has been mentioned, which was entitled ``Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,'' and I supported President Trump's order in that regard. But it guaranteed--and this is the issue--that civil servants in policy-making roles could not be held accountable when they were insubordinate to the President and members of the President's administration.

Why in the world would we not want there to be accountability when there is insubordination? That just is common sense. It is common sense that we have the ability to stand up when people are opposing or being insubordinate.

The bottom line is that the voters elect the President, and then the President nominates administration officials to implement the policy that the voters have elected the President to implement. When career officials resist implementing those mandates, then they are, in effect, resisting the voters.

This is, to me, at the heart of this whole issue right here. To resist the President's orders that have been supported by the voters is unacceptable, and we need the means to hold those individuals accountable.

America is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is not a government in which career bureaucrats dictate the way things will go, particularly when they are doing so in direct opposition to the will of the President, regardless of which party is represented in the White House.

My colleague, Mr. Connolly, is of the view that President Trump's order somehow reinstated a 19th-century-style political patronage system, but he is sorely mistaken. President Trump did not create Schedule F to reinstate a patronage system. Had he wanted to do that, he could have converted Schedule F to employees and to the same kind of at-will political employees that Schedule C has. That is not what he did.

President Trump's order simply made it easier to discipline or remove civil servants in policymaking roles who actively work to undermine the policies of their politically accountable superiors.

It also made it easier to deal with just plain poor performers. Who among us really wants to deal with poor performers? The executive order originally avoided meddling with Senior Executive Service individuals and preserved protections for nonpolicy-related civil service positions. In fact, those are the very types of positions that were the original object of the 19th century civil service reforms that eliminated the patronage system.

Regardless of one's view of Schedule F, this amendment simply is not needed, in spite of the fact that President Biden reversed it. This amendment is not needed. It is not wise. The personnel reforms President Trump's order attempted have been sorely needed and should not be precluded from any future administration, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.