H.Res. 667

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 667, providing for consideration of three measures.

First, H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Smith, provides 1 hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and provides one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order 476 amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5305, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through September 24. Requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills may be postponed through October 1.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority to October 27 and provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion that the House suspend the rules and pass S. 2382 is vacated.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule, H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022; H.R. 5305, the continuing resolution; and H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

I want to start by recognizing the contributions of the North Carolinians and all American servicemembers who served in Afghanistan over the past 20 years. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

It is in honor of these American heroes that I am proud to support the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill invests in our servicemembers and their families and ensures that the United States is ready to confront future threats to our Nation.

This NDAA provides our men and women in uniform with a 2.7 percent pay increase; makes critical changes to how the military addresses sexual assault; and improves TRICARE coverage and benefits, including by removing cost sharing for contraceptive coverage.

I am grateful that three of my amendments were made in order. Two of these amendments aim to support military women and families by requiring reports on access to menstrual products and accommodations and on potential TRICARE coverage of preconception and prenatal genetic carrier screening tests.

My other amendment expands the definition of PFAS to better align with the current science. This change will help keep our servicemembers and all Americans safe from toxic chemicals.

In addition to supporting our military personnel, this legislation supports American innovation through a 32 percent increase in defense- wide research, development, testing, and evaluation. It also ensures that our HBCUs and other minority institutions are more able to contribute to DOD research and development.

Finally, this bill continues our commitment to supporting our Afghan allies by authorizing $500 million for the Department of Defense to support the relocation of at-risk Afghans.

The continuing resolution included in this rule also supports efforts to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan. Afghans arriving to the U.S. or awaiting processing overseas need medical care, food, housing, and other assistance. This funding will ensure the government agencies involved in the resettlement process have the capacity necessary to help our Afghan allies build new lives in safety in the United States.

In addition, the continuing resolution ensures that our government remains funded, raises the debt ceiling, and provides relief to areas devastated by Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters.

Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans. We all benefit when our democracy and economy are healthy, and we all suffer when our country is in crisis.

Every Member in this body was elected to represent our fellow Americans. It would be a dishonor to the trust they bestowed upon us if we let the government shut down or allow the country to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

This CR will provide much-needed relief to communities devastated by recent hurricanes and other disasters like the California wildfires.

Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and many Americans still have limited access to fresh water and electricity. Additional delays in relief could be the difference between life and death.

Lastly, this rule includes the Women's Health Protection Act, which safeguards reproductive freedom for people across this country.

Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. With this bill, the House is stepping in following the Supreme Court's failure to uphold decades of American jurisprudence.

This bill affirms what our Constitution and international human rights bodies have long upheld: that access to reproductive care is central to health and equality. A woman living in Texas should have the same access to care as a woman living in California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Military.com article entitled ``Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low- Income Military Families.''

[From Military.com, July 27, 2021]

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

Families

(By Patricia Kime)

A House panel is weighing a $770 billion defense policy

bill that includes a provision to give lower-income military

families a basic needs allowance--a stipend that advocacy

groups say would relieve stress and ``food insecurity'' among

U.S. troops.

The draft of the House's 2022 National Defense

Authorization Act released Tuesday contains a provision

similar to the Senate's proposal that would provide service

members additional money for food and other basics if their

household incomes do not exceed 130% of the federal poverty

level--which in 2021 meant $21,960 for a family of three,

$26,500 for a family of four, and slightly higher for even

larger families.

This is the third time the proposal has been incorporated

into the House defense policy bill; unlike previous years, it

also has been included in the 2022 Senate defense bill,

increasing the likelihood that it will pass later this year.

For an E-4 with several years in the military, a spouse and

two children, the stipend could equate to roughly $250 extra

a month.

Advocates say the provision is needed as junior military

service members face the stresses of supporting families in

areas where spouse employment is low or child-care expenses

make it difficult to pay monthly bills.

``When I got to the [Defense Department], I started talking

about food insecurity, and I really did get a look that said

to me, `We really don't think we have a problem,' '' Patty

Barron, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Military

Community and Family Policy, said at an event on military and

veterans food insecurity Tuesday.

The data is mixed on the extent of food insecurity among

military families. This year, the Defense Department's

Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation found that an

estimated 880 to 4,690 U.S. service members use the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a rate of

between .08% and .42% of troops. Civilian usage of SNAP, also

known as food stamps, is 9.6%.

Critics note, however, that the report pulled data from

only two months in 2019, and the data does not include

numbers from 40% of states, including several with large

military populations such as California, Hawaii and Virginia.

``The reason we thought we didn't have a problem is, we

were looking at the low SNAP numbers, and we believe we are

compensating our people well, and if not, they will promote

out of it and get those pay raises to solve the problem,''

Barron added.

``The department is much more aware of the issue now, and

it is one of Secretary [Lloyd] Austin's biggest priorities,''

Barron said during the discussion hosted by the Center For

Strategic and International Studies.

A survey released in May found that nearly 33% of more than

5,600 respondents at an unidentified Army installation were

considered marginally food insecure, meaning they faced food

hardship or had difficulties ensuring that their food budget

stretched through the end of the month.

And according to a report from the organization MAZON: A

Jewish Response to Hunger, one in eight military families

experiences food insecurity compared with one in 10 in the

U.S. civilian population.

``The mental health of our service members is key to their

long-term connection to the military and the well-being of

their families, and given that we find service members'

mental health is associated with food insecurity, addressing

food insecurity may be one way to address [mental health

issues],'' said Matthew Rabbitt, an economist with the USDA

Economic Research Service, during the CSIS event.

The House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee will

consider its portion of the 2022 National Defense

Authorization Act on Wednesday. The bill is expected to be

debated by the full committee on Sept. 1 and must be

reconciled with the Senate's version before it can become

law.

The proposed legislation provides for a 2.7% pay raise for

military personnel in 2022 and a number of other benefits,

including an increase in parental leave for service members

and designated caregivers as well as foster parents,

expansion of the department's in-home, child-care pilot

program and the establishment of an advisory council to

support the services' Exceptional Family Member Programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that members of our armed services and their families are going hungry. I have heard about this in my home State of North Carolina, where there are food banks associated with military bases.

I am grateful that this 2022 NDAA will provide servicemembers additional money for food and other basic needs. No one in America should go hungry, especially those serving our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA authorizes funding for cybersecurity investments in people, programs, and technology. It directs the executive branch to establish a cyber-threat information collaboration environment which will facilitate the transmission, sharing, and analysis of cyber-threat information, which is so crucial, particularly at this time.

This legislation implements key recommendations of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by authorizing funding for key AI-related initiatives, including investments in the workforce, emerging technologies research, and support for our small business contractors.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes funding to support biological threat reduction programs, requires a publicly available report on threats regarding weapons of mass destruction by China and Russia, and directs a report on biosecurity efforts across the Department of Defense, all needed and crucial investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight an amendment that is sponsored by several of our colleagues that will be in the NDAA and that we will hear more about this evening and tomorrow. It deals with PFAS, forever chemicals. We have debated issues about PFAS on this floor, but unfortunately members of our armed services sometimes end up being human guinea pigs for these PFAS.

This amendment will deal with many of these concerns. It directs the Secretary of Defense to provide DOD medical providers with mandatory training with respect to the potential health effects of PFAS. We have seen this in North Carolina, particularly at Fort Bragg.

It requires the EPA to obtain analytical reference standards for PFAS, for the development of protocols and methodologies and enforcement activities.

It clarifies the scope of PFAS data reporting from the 2020 NDAA.

It amends title III, section 318 to clarify that DOD must comply with safe incineration of PFAS as enacted in section 330 of the NDAA of fiscal year 2020.

It requires the report on DOD progress to comply with EPA safe PFAS disposal guidelines, and it requires that this report be submitted one year after enactment of the act, and it includes that they report to the Committee on Armed Services.

It requires the report to include the actions the DOD has taken to comply with that section. It defines the scope of prohibition to ensure that PFAS materials sent to third-parties for disposal are also covered by the provisions.

It expresses the sense of Congress that the Air Force has contaminated real property with PFOS and PFOA chemicals, and it should use existing authority to acquire property and provide relocation assistance.

It requires a report detailing contamination sites and acquisition and relocation status.

It requires a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS, and clarifies congressional intent by requiring manufacturers to disclose all PFAS discharges over 100 pounds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some additional benefits of this NDAA in dealing with global challenges.

H.R. 4350 invests in tools to combat the unprecedented challenge of a global pandemic, racial inequities, and a deepening climate emergency.

The NDAA authorizes funding for national defense and prioritizes programs and policies to confront the growing threat of China and Russia.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are additional wonderful amendments dealing with cybersecurity that are in the NDAA.

We will hear again about another cybersecurity training pilot program for the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans and members of the Armed Forces transitioning from service to civilian life. It creates a registered apprenticeship program at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency focused on cybersecurity and infrastructure security. Both programs will be established in coordination with the Department of Defense.

We know that we do not have enough people in civilian life with this cybersecurity training as we face these threats like we saw in my home State of North Carolina with the Colonial Pipeline.

Having this transition from DOD to civilian life and having supportive apprenticeship programs will go a long way to fighting cybersecurity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 faith-based religious and civil rights organizations expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

June 16, 2021.

Hon. Dick Durbin,

Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Blumenthal,

Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on The

Constitution, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Ted Cruz,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Subcommittee on The Constitution, Washington, DC.

101 Faith-Based, Religious, & Civil Rights Organizations Express

Support for the Women's Health Protection Act

Dear Senators Durbin, Grassley, Blumenthal, Cruz, and

Committee Members: As faith-based, religious, and civil

rights organizations that share a commitment to religious

freedom and the separation of religion and government, we

write to express our strong and unequivocal support for S

1975, the Women's Health Protection Act.

We affirm our nation's founding principle of religious

liberty, which is integrally bound to reproductive freedom.

Religious liberty includes the right to follow one's own

faith or moral code in making critical, personal reproductive

health decisions, without political interference. While we

respect the right of every individual, including our

lawmakers, to hold their own personal and religious beliefs,

our country's Constitution demands that no one impose a

single religious viewpoint on all through civil law or

regulation. The Women's Health Protection Act is essential

legislation that embodies these shared ideals.

The Women's Health Protection Act is urgently needed. The

nearly 500 abortion bans and restrictions enacted since 2011

have severely reduced or eliminated abortion access

in large swaths of the country and fall hardest on those who

already face barriers to accessing health care--including

women; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); those

working to make ends meet; members of the LGBTQI+ community;

immigrants; young people; those living in rural communities;

and people with disabilities. The Women's Health Protection

Act is an important bill that would enact protections on the

federal level to safeguard access to high-quality care and to

secure constitutional rights by protecting patients and

providers from political or religious interference.

Rather than face onerous barriers due to their economic

status, employment status, or zip code, this bill would

ensure that each person can make a decision about abortion

led by their own circumstances, faith, or beliefs. It would

also protect the religious liberty of individual health care

providers seeking to administer quality care to their

patients and enable providers to deliver abortion services

free from burdensome restrictions designed to impede access

rather than improve patient health.

We believe in compassion, justice, and dignity for all,

compelling us to speak out for social justice and the right

of every person to access comprehensive, affordable, and

equitable reproductive health care. A compassionate nation

ensures equal access to quality, timely health abortion care

for everyone, an essential factor to social and economic

participation, reproductive and moral autonomy, and the right

to determine our own lives. In contrast, laws that limit the

availability of abortion disrespect human dignity, erode

constitutional rights, exact far-reaching health and economic

consequences, and ignore the moral agency of physicians

seeking to provide compassionate care.

Furthermore, laws that eliminate options for some based on

their geographic location are profoundly unjust, pushing care

out of reach for the most marginalized among us. We cannot

remain idle as state laws transform our country into a map of

``haves and have-nots'' with regard to access to reproductive

health services. We call on Congress to pass Women's Health

Protection Act to protect access to abortion and to help us

build a society where all can participate equally and thrive

in our communities with dignity.

Every day, we support equal, fair, and comprehensive access

to health care and respect for personal decision-making. We

support the Women's Health Protection Act as a means to this

end and urge you and your colleagues to do the same. The

117th Congress must act in solidarity with people and

communities fighting for racial, economic, and reproductive

justice and commit to protecting the right of every person to

make their own decisions about their bodies, free from

discrimination and political interference. It is the right

thing to do.

Please contact Shannon Russell, Legislative Counsel at the

National Council of Jewish Women, with any questions or for

additional information.

Respectfully,

National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Choice,

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union for Reform

Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism.

National Organizations

A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist; African

American Ministers In Action (AAMIA); ALEPH: Alliance for

Jewish Renewal; Ameinu; American Atheists; American Humanist

Association; American Jewish World Service; Anti-Defamation

League; Avodah; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; CenterLink:

The Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of

American Rabbis; Chicago Women-Church; Clergy Advocacy

Board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; CORPUS;

Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Women's

Caucus; Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Global Justice Institute (MCC); Habonim Dror North America;

Human Rights Campaign; Interfaith Voices for Reproductive

Justice; Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; Jewish

Council for Public Affairs (JCPA); Jewish Women

International; Jews United for Justice; Keshet; Methodist

Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Churches

(MCC); Moving Traditions; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for

Progressive Values; National Center for Lesbian Rights;

National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition

of American Nuns (NCAN); National Organization for Women.

Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies; People For the

American Way; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options;

Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructing Judaism,

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Religious

Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Tivnu: Building

Justice; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights;

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of

Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Voices for Progress;

We Testify; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual

(WATER); Women's League for Conservative Judaism; Women's

Ordination Conference.

State & Local Organizations

Florida Interfaith Coalition for Reproductive Health and

Justice; Jewish Community Action; Just Texas: Faith Voices

for Reproductive Freedom; Michigan Organization on Adolescent

Sexual Health (MOASH); Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social

Justice Network (MUUSJN); National Council of Jewish Women,

Arizona Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Atlanta

Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Austin Section;

National Council of Jewish Women, Chicago North Shore

Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Cleveland Section;

National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Essex County Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Greater Dallas Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Greater Long Beach & West Orange

County Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater New

Orleans Section.

National Council of Jewish Women, Houston Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Jersey Hills Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Kansas City Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Maine Section; National Council of

Jewish Women, Milwaukee Section; National Council of Jewish

Women, Minnesota Section; National Council of Jewish Women,

Nashville Section; National Council of Jewish Women, New York

Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Northern Virginia;

National Council of Jewish Women, Palm Beach Section;

National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section; National

Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section; National Council

of Jewish Women, Sacramento Section; National Council of

Jewish Women, San Antonio Section; National Council of Jewish

Women, Sarasota-Manatee Section; National Council of Jewish

Women, Southeast Atlantic Section.

National Council of Jewish Women, South Cook Section;

National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section; Nebraska

Religious Council for Reproductive Freedom; New Mexico

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Ohio Religious

Coalition for Reproductive Choice; PA Religious Coalition for

Reproductive Justice; Religious Coalition for Reproductive

Choice of Connecticut, Inc.; Rhode Island Religious Coalition

for Reproductive Freedom; Sister Reach; South Carolina

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Texas Freedom

Network; United Church of Christ Detroit Area Social Justice

Team.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Nurses United, dated September 21 expressing their resounding support for H.R. 3755.

The letter states: ``On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by the National Nurses United, we write to you today to endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 sponsored by Representative Chu. We strongly urge you to vote `yes' on this critical piece of legislation when it is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives.''

National Nurses United,

September 21, 2021.

Dear Representative: National Nurses United supports the

right of all women and people who can get pregnant to full

and equal healthcare services, including reproductive and

family planning health services as a fundamental human right.

On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by

National Nurses United (NNU), we write to you today to

endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (HR 3755)

sponsored by Representative Judy Chu. We strongly urge you to

vote yes on this critical piece of legislation when it is

brought to a vote on the floor of the House of

Representatives.

The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) establishes a

statutory right for health professionals to provide abortion

care without any medically unnecessary restrictions or

limitations that impede access to abortion. With increasing

attacks on reproductive rights, it is critical that Congress

swiftly takes steps to protect access to abortion and

reproductive health care.

Nurses, the majority of whom are women, play an essential

role in the delivery of reproductive health services for

millions of patients every day, and we have a duty to

advocate for the health and safety of our patients. Without

access to abortion services, patients who are pregnant may be

at risk of illness and death due to pregnancy, or may be at

risk of avoidable complications from unsafe and illegal

abortion practices. Further, access to quality reproductive

healthcare allows people to make decisions for themselves on

whether and when to have children, an essential component of

equality that enables full participation in our society.

Nurses know that unless we bring down the barriers to care,

people will go without the necessary healthcare they deserve.

The decision to have an abortion is a decision that should

be made between a person and their healthcare providers--it

is not a decision that politicians have any right to be

engaged in. Patients have the right to seek abortion care

with the counsel of a trusted healthcare provider, regardless

of where they live, and it is critical that Congress protects

that right.

We urge you to stand with nurses and vote yes on HR 3755 to

protect the right of all people to access abortion care and

reproductive health services.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Castillo, RN,

Executive Director, National Nurses United.

Deborah Burger, RN,

President, National Nurses United.

Zenei Cortez, RN,

President, National Nurses United.

Jean Ross, RN,

President, National Nurses United.

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

June 14, 2021.

Hon. Richard Blumenthal,

U.S Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Judy Chu,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Blumenthal and Representative Chu: On behalf

of the undersigned medical organizations, representing

physicians dedicated to advancing the health of our patients,

thank you for introducing the Women's Health Protection Act

(S. 1975/H.R. 3755). The purpose of your legislation--to

protect the patient-physician relationship and preserve the

ability of physicians to provide evidence-based care to their

patients----is critically important.

Federal, state, and local lawmakers have long played an

important role in our health care system. The myriad policies

aimed at addressing the ongoing COVID-19 public health

emergency provide a prime example of legislators acting to

improve the health of their constituents. However, physician

leaders have long raised concerns, including in a New England

Journal of Medicine commentary nearly a decade ago, about the

alarming increase in legislators ``overstepping the proper

limits of their role in the health care of Americans to

dictate the nature and content of patients' interactions with

their physicians.'' This overreach has taken many forms,

including creating unnecessary obstacles for patients trying

to access medically appropriate care, forcing physicians to

practice outside the bounds of evidence-based medicine, and

criminalizing physicians for providing compassionate and

evidence-based care. The communities most impacted by these

barriers are those already experiencing grave inequities in

the health care system. The Women's Health Protection Act

would address an area of medicine systematically targeted

with government overregulation--reproductive health care--by

prohibiting these inappropriate restrictions and restoring

the ability of patients to receive comprehensive care free

from legislative intrusion.

Thank you again for sponsoring this important legislation

to prevent legislative interference in the practice of

medicine and protect the patient-physician relationship.

Sincerely,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;

American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of

Pediatrics; American College of Physicians; American

Gynecological & Obstetrical Society (AGOS); American Medical

Women's Association (AMWA); American Psychiatric Association;

American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Council of

University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CUCOG);

Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology

(IDSOG).

North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent

Gynecology; Society of Academic Specialists in General

Obstetrics and Gynecology; Society for Adolescent Health and

Medicine; Society of Family Planning; Society of Gynecologic

Oncology; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Society of OB/

GYN Hospitalists; Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and

Infertility; Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists

(WAGO); Womxn's Health Collaborative.

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

State of New York,

Office of the Attorney General,

June 16, 2021.

Hon. Dick Durbin,

Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Blumenthal,

Chair, Senate Committee on the Constitution,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Grassley,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Ted Cruz,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee and

Subcommittee: As the Supreme Court has consistently

recognized, ``[t]he ability of women to participate equally

in the economic and social life of the Nation has been

facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive

lives.'' Accordingly, laws that impose an undue burden on a

woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy are

unconstitutional. Nonetheless, many states across the country

have enacted laws in the name of promoting women's health

that do not, in fact, advance women's health or safety but

are instead designed to restrict access to abortion services.

These include laws requiring physicians have admitting

privileges at hospitals and setting arbitrary requirements at

women's health clinics for the size of procedure rooms and

corridors. As the Attorneys General of our respective states,

we write in support of the Women's Health Protection Act,

which would protect the constitutional right to abortion by

prohibiting medically unnecessary restrictions that

specifically target abortion providers and undermine the

availability of abortion services.

The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) targets onerous

state laws that have been adopted in a concerted strategy to

restrict access to abortion. In Whole Woman's Health v.

Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), the Supreme Court ruled

that a Texas law that required abortion providers to maintain

admitting privileges at a local hospital failed to advance

women's health and posed an undue burden on women seeking an

abortion. Last year, a coalition of 22 attorneys general

helped to win another victory in June Medical Services v.

Gee, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), in which the Supreme Court held

that a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. Rather

than waiting for medically unnecessary restrictions to

continue to be challenged in the courts--a process that can

often take years--Congress should pass the WHPA to ensure

that such restrictions are not imposed in the first place.

Medically unnecessary restrictions targeting abortion

providers actually disserve women's health and safety and

pose challenges for states that aim to provide a full range

of reproductive health services, including abortion services.

Often, strict requirements imposed on abortion providers

are presented as measures to protect and advance women's

health. Yet evidence shows that these restrictions instead

lead to worse health outcomes for women. One recent study in

Texas found that the maternal mortality rate in the state

doubled between 2010 and 2012, a period in which access to

women's health care services, including abortion services,

had become more difficult to obtain. Women who find

themselves too far from an abortion provider may have to

delay obtaining an abortion, which can. lead to health risks

and add to the cost of the procedure. Alternatively, some

women may resort to ``black market'' or self-induced

abortions, which can be extremely dangerous and lead to

serious injury or even death. And women who are forced to

carry a pregnancy to term after being denied abortion

services are four times more likely to develop potentially

life-threatening health conditions and are substantially more

likely to experience physical violence from abusive partners

or family members. These statistics illustrate the very real

cost to women throughout the United States from burdensome

laws that restrict the availability of safe and legal

abortion care. The widely known negative effects of laws

targeting abortion providers undermines any argument that

such laws are intended to promote women's health.

At the same time, the consequences of these laws are

already evident across the country. Research from 2017 found

that thirty-eight percent of women between the ages of 15 to

44 live in counties without an abortion clinic. Between 2014

and 2017, twenty-five abortion clinics shuttered in the South

and the Midwest. As of June 2019, six states have only a

single abortion clinic remaining. As providers close due to

the impact of medically unnecessary restrictions, women are

likely to be forced to travel farther and make greater

sacrifices to get access to services. Unfortunately, these

burdens often fall disproportionately on lower-income women

who cannot afford to travel, take time off work, or find

childcare in order to get to the nearest provider.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to ensuring that

each state satisfies its constitutional obligation to protect

the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy within its

borders. Among other things, we are deeply concerned about

protecting the constitutional rights of our residents who may

need medical care while present as students, workers, or

visitors in states with drastically restricted abortion

access. In addition, a substantial reduction in the

availability of abortion services in some states can cause

women to seek medical care in other states, thereby straining

their health care systems. Indeed, history shows that many

women will cross state lines, if they have the means to do

so, when abortions are unavailable in the states where they

live. For example, in the nearly three years between New York

State's liberalization of its abortion laws in 1970 and 1973

when the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled

that the right to choose was constitutionally protected,

close to 350,000 women came to New York from other states

where abortions were entirely or largely unavailable.In the

wake of recent abortion restrictions, some states, including

several of our own, have experienced a substantial influx of

out-of-state patients seeking abortions as a result of

reduced access in their home states.

Our states stand ready and willing to provide reproductive

care services to those who need them. However, a significant

and sudden increase in patients seeking abortions, especially

as a consequence of laws that do not advance women's health

and decrease available services, runs the risk of straining

the health care systems of less restrictive states. This in

turn can impair the availability of care and affect the

reproductive

choices of both residents and non-residents alike in those

states. Our states aim to continue providing a wide range of

reproductive health care services, including abortion

services, but our ability to do so could be substantially

burdened by the responsibility of ensuring that all women in

need of abortions are able to safely obtain one. The WHPA

would address this problem by safeguarding access to abortion

services in all states.

We support the passage of the WHPA given how it will help

to restore and facilitate access to abortion services

throughout the United States, upholding this critical

constitutional right. We look forward to working with you and

your committees as you consider this legislation. Please let

us know how we may be of assistance during this process.

Sincerely,

Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Rob Bonta,

California Attorney General; Philip Weiser, Colorado

Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut Attorney

General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General;

Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General;

Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron Frey,

Maine Attorney General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland

Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney

General; Aaron Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector

Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Ellen F.

Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Thomas J. Donovan,

Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Mark R. Herring,

Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington

State Attorney General.

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

Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we have a solemn duty to provide for our servicemembers and to keep our promise to our Afghan allies. The fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act will do both.

This NDAA will also invest in our Nation's defense by promoting cutting-edge research and development, much of which happens at our institutions of higher education, such as those in North Carolina's Research Triangle.

We also must pass the continuing resolution in order to support our Afghan allies, provide relief to regions recovering from Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters, suspend the debt limit, and keep our government funded.

Finally, we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act to enable women across the country to access reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

I want to highlight a discrepancy between the rhetoric and policies of opponents of reproductive freedom, particularly those from States like mine, including Texas. These opponents claim to be pro-life, to be working to protect families and babies, but almost always, these are the same people who oppose Medicaid expansion, universal childcare, and the expansion of the child tax credit.

In the United States today, babies that do not get prenatal care are five times more likely to die than babies that do get prenatal care. Prenatal care is one of the many critical forms of healthcare that Medicaid covers.

Medicaid also provides postpartum care coverage to new mothers, and the American Rescue Plan gave States the option to extend that coverage from 60 days to 12 months. Postpartum care is key to protecting new mothers from a variety of serious conditions that can develop after birth. Similarly, universal childcare and the child tax credit are investments in babies and in families.

Today, in America, supporting children and families means supporting Medicaid expansion, affordable childcare, tax benefits for families-- all of which are included in the Build Back Better Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks in a positive way by discussing H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. I am glad that this bill has not been poisoned by all the partisanship that has plagued the House for the past year, and that, as they have done for the past 61 years, the House Armed Services Committee came together and produced a bill that both Republicans and Democrats can support. We saw this in the overwhelming 57-2 vote to report the bill out of committee.

This outcome wasn't always assured, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, President Biden proposed a defense budget number that was woefully inadequate for America's defense needs. At a time when we are facing new and emerging threats around the globe, from the Middle East, to Afghanistan, to the South China Sea, we cannot afford to underfund our national defense.

Chronic underfunding of national defense was a hallmark of the Obama- Biden administration, and it appears that President Biden himself is determined to continue down that path. Fortunately, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees disagreed, and the House now has before it a bill that fully funds our defense needs for the coming fiscal year.

The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the U.S. Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military will be well-prepared to meet any new and emerging challenges in the coming years. And it provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay raise.

And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about the decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that they will get them.

And while I do not support every provision in the NDAA, I want to applaud the good work of the House Armed Services Committee. I think their process should serve as a model for all committees in the House. In an age when so much legislation is produced by one party behind closed doors in leadership offices, the committee did the hard work and produced a bill that both parties can support. Indeed, it is truly refreshing to be considering this bill today, and I want to commend Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member Mike Rogers for their good work and bipartisan working relationship.

Unfortunately, the next measure I will discuss isn't nearly so positive. This bill is a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 3, 2021. But rather than advancing a clean, negotiated CR, the majority is using the bill as a vehicle to push through a suspension of the national debt limit. This is a nonstarter with Republicans, as the majority well knows and, as such, I expect all Republicans will oppose it.

Since taking control of the Presidency and the Senate in January, the majority has been on a spending spree unlike any other in our history. Earlier this year, the Democrats rammed through a partisan $1.9 trillion reconciliation bill, ostensibly about COVID relief, but really about pushing forward a laundry list of progressive policies.

Last week, 13 authorizing committees met on another partisan reconciliation bill, this one larded up with a whopping $3.5 trillion in progressive policies like those found in the Green New Deal. And sadly, even that wasn't enough for some committees, who, according to the CBO, spent more than double what the budget resolution told them to. These bloated spending measures come on top of normal Federal spending and on top of the large bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages passed last year.

The last suspension of the debt limit covered all the spending that was done in the past, along with the first 9 months of the Biden administration. But since then, the majority has opened the national checkbook. They have done so with only Democratic votes. That is their prerogative. After all, they control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

But since the majority is spending this money over Republican objections, and without Republican cooperation, it is up to the majority to raise the debt limit. They should not expect Republican votes to help them cover their out-of-control spending.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad state of affairs that what should be a relatively simple measure to fund the government is being used in this manner. I urge my friends across the aisle to rethink this plan, and I hope they will come to their senses before government funding runs out nine days from now.

Our last bill covered by this rule is somehow even more partisan and controversial than the CR. This is H.R. 3755, which the majority is pitching as a simple codification of the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. In reality, this measure goes far beyond that. It is the greatest threat to the protection of innocent, unborn life that we have seen in over 50 years.

The bill before us preempts any State law that seeks to protect life, including policies that those who identify as pro-choice support. Instead, every single State would be required to allow abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth.

No more would States be able to protect conscience rights; no more would they be able to ban barbaric procedures like dismemberment abortions; and no more would they be able to prevent abortions targeting fetuses with Down

Syndrome, which 70 percent of the American people oppose.

I would call on all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to reject this measure.

Protecting the unborn has always been one of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress. We need only to look at the Declaration of Independence for a reminder that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights endowed upon all of us, even unborn children, by our Creator. I urge this House to remember those words, remember the unborn, and to reject this egregious attack on life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and two of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4828, the Border Security for America Act, for immediate consideration.

The last couple of days have made it plainly obvious that the Federal Government has lost control of our southern border. More than 15,000 migrants have set up camp under the Del Rio International Bridge. Customs and Border Patrol have been completely overwhelmed, to the point that Texas Governor Abbott had to take things into his own hands and deploy both the National Guard and Texas Rangers to stop the flow.

Rather than allowing the President to simply fiddle, we must do something in Congress to address this unprecedented crisis. H.R. 4828 will address the ongoing crisis in three ways. It would require the immediate resumption of construction of the wall at the southern border; it would provide for new investments in technology; and it would ensure an appropriate level of Customs and Border Protection officers to fulfill CBP's mandate at all ports of entry and along the border.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to further explain the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's reckless and dangerous policies have led to a crisis on the southern border, as the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and people continues to threaten American communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to speak more about this crisis and solutions contained in H.R. 4828.

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

Mr. Speaker, the crisis at the southern border is affecting communities across the United States, but nowhere is that more apparent than in those communities that are near the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales), my good friend and a distinguished fellow member of the Appropriations Committee, to speak more about the need for the Border Security for America Act.

Mr. Speaker, it should be easy to agree that securing our southern border is vital for national security. Our next speaker will talk more about H.R. 4828 and the need for vital security improvements as part of an overall strategy to secure and protect the southern border.

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the author of the bill, and the ranking Republican member on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, and a fellow member of the Rules Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), my good friend, and a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the distinguished Republican ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend from North Carolina. We don't agree obviously on the rule, we don't agree on every piece of legislation, but I appreciate the civility and the quality of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, to me, as I look at both the rule and the underlying legislation, the phrase that immediately comes to my mind is the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Let's start with the good. There is no question that the National Defense Authorization Act is a product of bipartisan cooperation of the highest order on the House Armed Services Committee. Nobody got everything they wanted, but there are a lot of things in there that both sides worked together on to achieve. I particularly want to commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for the manner in which they approached this bill. I want to commend them for the additional $25 billion. I know that the chairman didn't support that, but obviously many Democratic Members did. I think that was an important sign that the country is united on the idea that we need to spend more on defense in these very dangerous times.

Again, the quality of the compromise and some of the legislation that is included in this is extraordinarily important. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) mentioned the issue of sexual assault. It is addressed in this bill in a bipartisan, thoughtful way. I thank her for her tireless work on that very important subject.

I also thank those Members that worked hard to reposition our defense where we focus on our emerging threats, our near-peer threats of China and Russia while also dealing with North Korea, Iran, and the threat of global terrorism.

It is a good bill. Not everybody will support it, but I think it will get overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to voting for it.

To me, the bad is H.R. 3755. I make no bones about it, Mr. Speaker. I am strongly pro-life. I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. I respect those with a different point of view, but this is not a codification of Roe v. Wade. This is a radical abortion bill that would allow abortion-on-demand in every State under almost any circumstances that the provider of the abortion deems appropriate.

Quite frankly, it is an enormous overreach, and it will overturn dozens of State laws in many States all around the country, laws that have been constitutionally approved in the past. That is unfortunate, and I think many on our side that certainly work on women's health are not going to vote in support of abortion-on-demand.

Mr. Speaker, finally, to me, the continuing resolution unquestionably is the ugly. It is not all ugly. There are actually some good things in there. I actually commend my friends for voting to keep the government open. I would normally do that as well. No partisan debate there, at least not from me.

I also very much support the relief for those Americans who have been the victims of natural disasters, which is contained in the bill. That, too, was negotiated by the Committee on Appropriations. It is an appropriate measure.

So, too, is the money set aside to help those fleeing from the Taliban, those who worked with our forces in Afghanistan and who now come to our country and to other countries seeking refuge and support. We should honor the commitment and the sacrifice they made on our behalf.

We could have passed a bill like that in a united, bipartisan fashion. Indeed, the Committee on Appropriations had essentially negotiated the deal. Then a decision was made by Democratic leadership to interject a debt ceiling resolution without any discussion, any negotiation, any way to lower that debt or offset it or slow it down or reform the process. That is what many of my friends object to.

I voted for debt ceiling increases in the past under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I certainly would be prepared to do so again, but not without addressing some of the drivers of the debt, and certainly not as a sign off on a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that is on top of our normal appropriations, on top of the bipartisan release given and the coronavirus crisis thus far.

That is a stretch too far. My friends know that it won't work, yet we are going to kick it over to the Senate, where we know the support is not there.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will be back on this floor dealing with this matter again, hopefully in a fashion where the two parties can work together and keep the government open and operational.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call up the bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4350.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we have before us the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, and I highly recommend it to the Members of the House and urge everybody to support this incredibly important and very well put together piece of legislation.

The first thing I will say is thank you to all of the staff, certainly on the Armed Services Committee, but the Rules Committee as well, and the leadership staff. This has been a truly bipartisan legislative process.

We had our markup in committee which lasted, I will do a little quick math in my head, something like 16 hours. We considered over 800 amendments, with a variety of different variations, and we got that number up closer to 1100. And then before the Rules Committee there were, again, over 800 amendments submitted, and we have worked with Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, members on the committee and off, to craft what I think is a very good piece of legislation.

I think it is incredibly important, first of all, that we pass this bill so that Congress continues to exercise its authority to exercise oversight over the Department of Defense.

I know Members on both sides of this aisle have lamented throughout the years the degree to which the executive branch has exerted more power over the years, where the legislative branch has exhibited less. Now, granted, you find that issue more troubling when the opposite party is in charge of the White House, but we are all troubled by that phenomena.

We need to exercise our authority; this bill does that. To my mind, Congress does not pass enough authorizing bills, but we do do so in the Department of Defense, and have done so for over 60 straight years, and should do so again.

This bill, I think, is particularly important because we are at an important moment in defense of this country and in dealing with our role in the world. We have never faced a more complex threat environment. We have threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorist groups.

In addition, we are now coming out of 20 years of war fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries of which our military now is out and not fighting those wars, and we have a whole bunch of change to deal with.

At the same time, innovation has never been more important in properly defending this country. We need to update and modernize our armed forces, everything from our information systems, to our command and control, to our platforms, to the support we give to our servicemembers. I am very proud that this bill reflects those priorities.

And the work has been done between Mr. Rogers and myself and members of the committee to produce that product. And I want to take a moment here to thank Mr. Rogers, the ranking member, he has been a terrific partner in this process, as has his staff and as has his members.

I think this bill reflects those priorities. It figures out how to improve our ability to update the military more quickly, to better buy software, to better innovate, to better embrace the innovative technologies that we need.

Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank Mr. Langevin, as the subcommittee chair, who has taken the lead on the AI task force that looks at this question in great specificity. This bill really puts us in a position to modernize the force as we need to.

One other crucial issue that we do in this is we address the issue of sexual assault in the military that continues to be a scourge upon service in the military. We have worked for years to try to address this issue, we have not been successful.

This year, thanks in large part to the leadership of Congresswoman Speier, we have updated the UCMJ to create a special victims' prosecutor to give sexual assault and sex crimes the attention they deserve to make sure that we are protecting the men and women who serve in the military. It is a crucial aspect of this bill, and I strongly urge Members to support it.

Lastly, let me just say that as you pore over this bill, everybody here will find something that they do not like. Everybody here will also find something that they wish was in there that is not. There is no doubt about that, because it is a very large bill, and it was a collaborative process.

But it is the nature of the legislative process that you don't get absolutely everything that you want. I hope Members will keep that in mind. But it is also the nature of the legislative process, in this case, that we have produced a product that everybody in this House can be proud of.

And, again, I want to thank my Republican counterpart. We have worked together to produce this. I urge support from all Members. This is a bill every Member, Democrat and Republican, can enthusiastically support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2021.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2022. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on House

Administration does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall

within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the

Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference

committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

4350 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden), who is a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who is the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I just want to agree with Mr. Rogers. This bill, as you can hear from the Members speaking in favor of it on both sides of the aisle, encompasses a lot of different provisions, all designed to make sure we can adequately defend the country; and, most importantly, designed to make sure that we protect the men and women who are serving us to protect that country.

There are a lot of provisions in this bill focused on improving the quality of life, including a 2.7 percent pay increase and significant increases to improve things like childcare centers and barracks across the country.

I think this bill does an excellent job of identifying the threats that we face and putting ourselves in the best possible position to meet those threats going forward.

Again, no bill is perfect. We disagree on things. Everyone will have something in here that they wish were slightly different, but overall, I think we can support this bill.

I do want to close by once again emphasizing, I know there is a lot of angst about the amendments that have been ruled in order; but, again, that is not unusual that we would deal with issues that are not necessarily directly within our jurisdiction. We work with the committees of jurisdiction in order to carry those bills. We will continue to work on that.

I can say with confidence that there is no amendment that has been ruled in order that we are going to debate on that should impact any Members voting for this bill. This is a very strong bill. Do not forget the underlying provisions in this bill that are so important to the men and women who are serving this country, to the protections they need, the protections they deserve, and the protections that it is our obligation to provide for them and which I feel very, very strongly that this bill does.

This bill deserves support from this committee. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment, which is identical to the SAFE Banking Act the House passed by a vote of 321-101 in April. 180 bipartisan Members of Congress and 39 bipartisan Senators are cosponsors of this important legislation to allow State-regulated cannabis businesses to access the financial system and improve safety in our communities by getting cash off the streets.

By bringing cash into the financial system, banks and credit unions will

subject the funds and the account holders to rigorous anti-money laundering and ``know your customer'' requirements. Under FinCEN's 2014 guidance, financial institutions must comply with a heightened anti- money laundering reporting regime when providing services to cannabis businesses. This will strengthen the security of our financial system and our country by keeping bad actors like foreign cartels out of the cannabis industry.

But most importantly, this amendment will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. By dealing in all cash, these businesses and their employees become targets for robbery, assaults, burglaries, and more. In Colorado, Travis Mason, a young father and Marine Corps veteran, was murdered while working as a security guard for a cannabis business. We cannot wait any longer to address this public safety threat.

I want to thank my cosponsors on this amendment, Representatives Velazquez, Davidson, Correa, Blumenauer, Joyce, and Barbara Lee, as well as former Representatives Heck and Stivers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from Alabama the matter was deemed germane by the Parliamentarian.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Governors from 21 States and Territories endorsing the SAFE Banking Act, along with a list of 41 other diverse organizations who support the legislation.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Sherrod Brown,

Chair, Senate Committee on Banking,

Housing and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chair,

House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Pat Toomey,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and

Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

April 19, 2021.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As our States' chief

executives, we urge Congress to pass legislation allowing

states with legalized medical or adult-use cannabis to

operate safely under the national banking system. We strongly

support the passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE)

Banking Act of 2021 (H.R. 1996/S. 910) or similar legislation

that would remove the legal uncertainty and allow banks and

credit unions to provide services to state-licensed cannabis-

related businesses.

We were pleased that the House passed similar legislation

in the 116th Congress (H.R. 1595). The SAFE Banking Act of

2021 already has more than 165 bipartisan House cosponsors

and more than 30 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. The

legislation has also received support from more than 30

associations.

Currently, 36 U.S. states, four U.S. territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of

cannabis. Additionally, 18 states, two territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized recreational use by

adults over 21 years of age. Despite legalization of cannabis

at the state-level, our financial institutions face enormous

legal risks and criminal and civil liability under the

Controlled Substances Act. These barriers disincentive

financial institutions from providing banking services to

state-licensed and regulated cannabis businesses.

Because few banks and credit unions provide these services,

state-licensed cannabis businesses predominantly operate on a

cash basis. Without banking services, state-licensed cannabis

businesses are unable to write checks, make and receive

electronic payments, utilize a payroll provider, or accept

credit and debit cards. Cash only businesses pose a

significant public safety risk to customers and employees.

The cash-only environment also burdens state and local

government agencies that must collect tax and fee payments in

person and in cash, which creates additional public expenses

and employee safety risks.

State and federal governments have a shared interest in

upholding the rule of law, protecting public safety, and

transitioning markets out of the shadows and into our

transparent and regulated banking system. Many of our states

have implemented laws and regulations to reduce these risks

while ensuring financial accountability of the cannabis

industry. These public safety risks can be further mitigated

on the federal level by passing the SAFE Banking Act to

provide state-licensed cannabis businesses with access to

banking service providers.

We urge you to pass the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 or similar

legislation that would provide a safe harbor for depository

institutions that provide a financial product or service to a

state-licensed cannabis business in states that have

legalized cannabis. We look forward to working with you as

legislation progresses to address this urgent public policy

and safety concern.

Sincerely,

Governor Jared Polis, State of Colorado; Governor Ned

Lamont, State of Connecticut; Governor John Bel

Edwards, State of Louisiana; Governor Charlie Baker,

State of Massachusetts; Governor Steve Sisolak, State

of Nevada; Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, State of

New Mexico; Governor Doug Burgum, State of North

Dakota; Governor Gavin Newsom, State of California;

Governor JB Pritzker, State of Illinois; Governor Janet

Mills, State of Maine; Governor Gretchen Whitmer, State

of Michigan; Governor Phil Murphy, State of New Jersey;

Governor Andrew Cuomo, State of New York; Governor Kate

Brown, State of Oregon; Governor Tom Wolf, State of

Pennsylvania; Governor Albert Bryan, Territory of U.S.

Virgin Islands; Governor Jay Inslee, State of

Washington; Governor Tony Evers, State of Wisconsin;

Governor Spencer Cox, State of Utah; Governor Ralph

Northam, State of Virginia; Governor Jim Justice, State

of West Virginia.

The SAFE Banking Act is supported by Governors from 21 states and

territories as well as these 41 organizations

1. American Bankers Association (ABA).

2. American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL).

3. American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

4. American Financial Services Association (AFSA).

5. American Land Title Association (ALTA).

6. American Property Casualty Insurance Association

(APCIA).

7. American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp

(ATACH).

8. Arizona Dispensaries Association (ADA).

9. Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR).

10. California and Nevada Credit Union Leagues (CCUL).

11. California Insurance Commissioner and California

Department of Insurance.

12. Cannabis Business Association of Illinois.

13. Colorado Bankers Association.

14. Colorado Municipal League.

15. Credit Union National Association (CUNA).

16. Council of lnsurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB).

17. Electronic Transactions Association (ETA).

18. Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

19. Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America

(IIABA).

20. Insured Retirement Institute (IRI).

21. Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP).

22. Mountain West Credit Union Association (MWCUA).

23. National Armored Car Association.

24. National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

(NAFCU).

25. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

(NAMIC).

26. National Association of Professional Insurance Agents

(PIA).

27. National Association of Realtors.

28. National Association of State Treasurers (NAST).

29. National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR).

30. National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA).

31. National Medicinal Cannabis Coalition (NMCC).

32. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

(NORML).

33. Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA).

34. Policy Center for Public Health & Safety.

35. Reinsurance Association of America (RAA).

36. Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

37. The Real Estate Roundtable.

38. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

39. U.S. Cannabis Council (USCC).

40. U.S. Hemp Roundtable.

41. Wholesale & Specialty Insurance Association (WSIA).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

This is a public safety and a national security matter, very germane to the issues at hand, dealing with foreign cartels and particularly the cash that is developed by this business that leads to crime. We have seen murders, robberies, assaults, and then the potential for foreign malignant forces to get into the cannabis industry here in the United States.

I urge the passage of amendment No. 1 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the House, led by the Democratic majority, did its job, passing 10 of the 12 appropriations bills earlier this year, but Senate Republicans failed to hold a single markup of appropriations bills, making it necessary to pass this Continuing Resolution to avert a shutdown that would only further damage our economy.

Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy.

And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 5305.

Section 101. Same Terms and Conditions for Continuing Appropriations as FY 2020.

Section 101 states that appropriations are under the same terms and conditions, including relevant authorities and prohibitions, as the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills.

Section 106. End Date of CR.

Section 106 provides that the CR ends at the earlier of the enactment of a full-year appropriations bill or December 3, 2021.

Section 112. Restrictions on Furloughs or Termination of Employees.

Section 112 restricts furloughs or termination of employees due to lack of funds during the duration of a CR.

Section 113. Waiver Language for Intelligence Programs.

Section 113 provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Section 118. Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

Section 118 allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the CR to provide supplemental USDA foods to low- income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low-income women, infants and children up to age six.

Section 127. Increased Flexibility for White House COVID Response.

Section 127 allows a higher spending rate for the White House to support continuing COVID19 operations.

Section 129. Increased Flexibility to Process Certain SBA Business Loans.

Section 129 allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for business loans through the 7(a) and 504 business loans, for the Secondary Market Guarantee Program, and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program.

Section 130. Extension for District of Columbia Voucher School Accreditation.

Section 130 allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus.

Section 131. District of Columbia Local Funds

Section 131 allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act.

Section 132. Extension of Certain Bankruptcy Judgeships.

Section 132 extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships.

Section 134. Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).

Section 134 allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters.

Section 135. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Section 135 continues the authorization for the NFIP through December 3, 2021.

Section 148. Maintaining Funding for the TANF and Child Care Entitlement to States Programs.

Section 148 extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States.

Section 152. Extending Availability of Funding for NIH multiyear research grants.

Section 152 extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and strongly support the inclusion of Divisions B and C in the legislation before us.

Division B provides emergency supplemental appropriations in the amount of $28.6 billion to address the rising cost of climate change: recent natural disasters, including Hurricanes Ida, Delta, Zeta, and Laura, wildfires, severe droughts and winter storms, and other natural and major disasters declared in 2021 and prior years.

This funding will help working families, small businesses, and communities get back on their feet and rebuild, while repairing damage to federal facilities.

Division C provides $6.3 billion in supplemental appropriations to support Afghan evacuees includes funding to temporarily house evacuees at American facilities and in foreign countries, provide necessary security screenings, and ultimately resettle eligible evacuees in the United States.

The legislation also includes funding to provide humanitarian I assistance for Afghan refugees in neighboring countries.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as another example of the extraordinary and responsible leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Appropriations Committee Chair DeLauro, the legislation checkmates the announced Republican intention to vote against raising the debt and to have the federal government default on its obligations by extending the public debt limit through December 16, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history.

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me, in voting for H.R. 5305, the ``Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I also offer my strong support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act (''WHPA''), which would enshrine access to reproductive health care into law for all women across America.

The refusal of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to halt implementation of the odious and offensive Texas S.B. 8, the threat of other state attacks on the constitutional right to reproductive choice recognized in Roe v. Wade, and decades of precedent have together mandated that the House act to protect women's reproductive rights.