A bill to authorize the National Cyber Director to accept details from other elements of the Federal Government on nonreimbursable basis, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2382. As the author of the National Cyber Director Act, I commend Senators Portman and Peters for offering this important legislation to clarify the authorities of this new office.

I said it before and I will say it again: Cybersecurity is the national and economic security challenge of the 21st century. For 30 years we have been increasing the number of connected devices, processes, and services connected to the internet at an exponential rate. We can now instantly communicate with people half a world away and use data repositories to drive advances in medicine, clean energy, and commerce. With this connectivity comes vulnerability.

For these three decades, the United States has struggled to develop a coherent cybersecurity strategy and to implement it to better protect the country and cyberspace. While we have seen the results of this failure in breaches ranging from the devastating, the tens of billions of dollars in damage caused by, for example, NotPetya, to the mundane, as companies fend off daily cyber probes.

Just in the last half century we have witnessed the Russian Government target us through ransomware attacks through SolarWinds; the Chinese Government break into instances of the Microsoft Exchange Server, and criminals wreak havoc on the Colonial Pipeline, JBS, and customers of Kaseya through ransomware attacks, so we are not where we need to be.

Congress recognized this fact in 2018 when it created the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, a distinguished body that I had the privilege of being appointed to by Speaker Pelosi. Through a year of deliberation, we developed a strategy of layered cyber deterrence, and had more than 80 recommendations to make that strategy a reality. Those recommendations run the gamut from changes to our military to regulations on private companies. But underlying all of them is the recognition that the U.S. Government itself is still not organized for success.

Now enter the National Cyber Director. This key recommendation called for a Senate-confirmed leader within the Executive Office of the President with the policy and budgetary authority to develop a national strategy, oversee its implementation, and coordinate response to significant cyber incidents.

With the help of Congressman Gallagher, the Solarium Commission's co- chair, and through the leadership of Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and her staff, my National Cyber Director Act made it into last year's NDAA. Earlier this month, the President had appointed and the Senate confirmed our inaugural National Cyber Director, my fellow Solarium Commission member, Chris Inglis, to take office as the first Director.

Chris' confirmation represents nothing less than a sea change in how the government will coordinate cyberspace policy. Once this office is fully staffed up, there will be a well of expertise within the White House to ensure that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, sector risk management agencies, the United States Cyber

Command, the intelligence community, and all of the other disparate elements of the government are working in concert to improve our cybersecurity. However, the Office of the National Cyber Director is very much a startup at the moment.

While we will be voting on a full budget for this office later this week, including, I hope, an amendment to provide the full $25 million yearlong appropriation recommended by the Solarium Commission, we can't wait until the full fiscal year 2022 budget is passed to get Director Inglis on his feet and up and running.

After all, our adversaries certainly aren't constrained by our budgetary calendar. In drafting the bill, we anticipated that the NCD might need to call upon the personnel, facilities, or services of Federal departments and agencies, with their permission, of course. However, there seems to be some ambiguity within the White House about whether this includes the ability of the Office to accept the services of nonreimbursable detailees.

While I think the language and the congressional intent of the original statute are quite clear, this bill should clear up any misunderstanding once and for all by explicitly authorizing nonreimbursable detailees. This legislation will help Director Inglis get a staff vanguard in place and ensure he and his successors can take advantage of the expertise resident at the various agencies that contribute to our success in cyberspace.

Mr. Speaker, let me again thank Senators Portman and Peters and Chairwoman Maloney for moving so quickly to address this urgent issue. Congress has already shown tremendous support for this Office, and I think the speed at which this bill moves is a testament to our commitment to its success.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2382.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership.

Let me make a proclamation here on the floor of the House, that when you have the responsibility of governing, you govern.

The President of the United States, President Biden, who believes in transformational government, the House and the Senate, the House under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate under the leadership of Chuck Schumer. You govern. Today, we are making an enforced, pointed, and open statement about governing.

Let me quickly start with the NDAA, the vehicle that helps the men and

women who put on the uniform unselfishly on our behalf. I am excited about the increase in quality-of-life dollars, the raise in personnel salaries, the concern about families. I am increasingly excited about cyber protection, and as well that we ask the hard questions about Afghanistan and how we will not see the return of such. But we are not afraid to govern by asking those questions so that we can move forward.

I am also excited about recognizing that the quality-of-life issues for our members in the military are important. The Jackson Lee amendments emphasize those points:

$10 million to fight triple-negative breast cancer impacting our women in the United States military, particularly women of color.

$2.5 million in PTSD. I have heard many times we give to PTSD, but it keeps growing and growing, and there are those in our constituency, our constituents who need these ongoing services. I have been working on this for a long time.

To recognize that we must treat our men and women that go into the United States military academies fairly. Does anyone know that they admit people with speech disorders? Good for them. But when they graduate, they are not given a command. My amendment, that I hope to become law, will determine that you analyze all of your military students to make sure they have a command when they graduate.

I am most excited about one that I will talk about quickly later.

And then, of course, we have done so much great work with the momnibus to look at maternal mortality rates for military members traveling around the world.

Space debris, to determine how we can remediate the risks and outline plans to reduce the incidence of space debris.

To be able to ensure that we stop students from being recruited when they go overseas to be engaged in spy operations. That happens. And we are glad to have that, as well as to begin looking at renaming some of these bases after historic African Americans.

Let me quickly say that amendment No. 194 should be one that we all come together on, tracing the history of the service of African Americans in the United States military, particularly in slavery, to recognize that they can be a vital legacy to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk further about that as we move into the NDAA, but let me talk about my original premise of governing.

The continuing appropriations is crucial, and I support the lifting of the debt ceiling not to spend money, but--when you have responsibility to govern, you govern--to pay our bills. Does anyone want to suggest that we should not?

I am looking for a few good men and women on the other side of the aisle that will stand with us as Americans and be responsible to our fellow Americans, governing, so that we can ensure we have a supplemental food program and other aspects of it, but we have to govern.

More response to COVID-19.

And finally, it is important to give women back their rights. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and we are going to pass that legislation along with my anti-stalking and vigilante bill because people are suffering with the Texas law. It has no place in society. It is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be quashed, with the Roe v. Wade codification. I ask the other body to support us in that. I ask everyone to support the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question and in support of immediately considering legislation I introduced with dozens of my colleagues to address the deadly, record- breaking crisis along the southwest border.

Specifically, this bill, H.R. 4828, requires the Department of Homeland Security to secure our Nation's borders through the immediate renewal of the border wall project that was initiated by the previous administration, major investments in security technologies, and increased hiring of frontline Border Patrol agents and Federal law enforcement officers.

The Border Security for America Act is a multifaceted solution to secure our borders and prioritize the safety of Americans.

As a result of President Biden's misguided and destructive border security policies, there were 208,887 encounters along the southwest border in August 2021. That is a 317 percent increase from the previous year.

August was the sixth straight month with more than 170,000 illegal encounters, a trend never before recorded. In a 24-hour period on August 1 of this year, the U.S. Border Patrol encountered over 5,900 individuals from 33 different countries trying to cross the border.

This is not seasonal migration from Northern Triangle countries, as this administration would have you believe. This is a self-inflicted disaster stemming from this administration's destruction of any semblance of border security that began on President Biden's first day.

While many of us thought the border crisis couldn't possibly get any worse, just this week over 15,000 migrants illegally surged into Del Rio, Texas.

According to the recently departed chief of the Border Patrol, the front line is rapidly losing the situational awareness required to know who and what is entering our homeland. Border Patrol has already intercepted known or suspected terrorists trying to come across the border this year ``at a level we have never seen before.''

Illegal immigration is not the only threat along the border. This year CBP has already seized enough fentanyl at the border to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States seven times over. That is just what we caught at the border. Without adequate resources and personnel, fentanyl and other destructive drugs are able to flood into our communities all over this great Nation and poison our constituents, as has happened in my district in central New York.

In addition to ensuring preparedness along the border, the Border Security for America Act would resume construction of the border wall system, requiring the hiring and training of additional officers and agents to maintain an active-duty presence along the southwest border-- something we don't have right now, an increased number of agricultural specialists, K-9 units, and support officers.

We know these policies work and that President Biden's negligence has already proven dangerous to our national security. That is why this bill has the support of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 18,000 frontline Border Patrol agents and support staff. We are simply trying to provide the frontline agents with what they are asking for.

I often hear my friends on the other side of the aisle, whom I respect, accuse Republicans of complaining about problems without offering solutions. Well, here we are, giving you the opportunity to vote on a strong, commonsense solution to secure our borders and protect our communities.

I urge my colleagues to support the security of the United States and to support our frontline men and women by passing this bill.