Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8070) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2025 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year; relating to the consideration of House Report 118-527 and an accompanying resolution; and for other purposes.

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

First of all, I thank the chairman, as well as the staff both on the Republican and the Democratic side and our bipartisan staff in the process to date.

As the chairman noted, we produced a very strong bipartisan bill out of committee. It passed by a vote of 57-1 and addressed a number of key concerns to our national security. A lot of work went into that. I always lose track of the exact numbers, but well north of a thousand amendments were considered in committee and in the Rules Committee.

The staff sifted through all of those and really helped produce that product. That is not an easy job. We are blessed on both sides of the aisle, both on the Armed Services Committee and on the Rules Committee, with an outstanding staff. I thank them for their work in producing this product.

The number one highlight of the product, as the chairman mentioned, is the focus of the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. We impaneled a group, a task force, to examine quality-of- life issues, led by Don Bacon on the Republican side and Chrissy Houlahan on our side.

The task force really did a remarkable job of doing outreach to servicemembers, their families, and veterans and listening to them about what they need and what is most important to ensure that they have everything they need to take care of their families.

Certainly, one of the biggest issues was pay for junior enlisted. We upped that pay by 19.5 percent, which is a pretty dramatic number, but it reflects the need that those servicemembers face in the current environment.

We also focus on childcare, which is a crucial need, building more childcare centers and eliminating the backlog of people waiting to get access to childcare because we all know that what makes our military the best in the world is not any of the equipment, but the people who serve. We need to take care of the people who serve, and we need to take care of their families, as well. That is the crucial part of the military.

That is what this bill does better than any bill that we have ever done before in this committee and one of the many reasons why this bill is so important.

It is also crucial, as the chairman pointed out, to modernize and update our military. We are in a rapidly changing environment. We have seen that in the war in Ukraine. We saw that in the war in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Drones, counterdrones, and the ability to protect your information systems and make vulnerable the information systems of your adversaries are now absolutely crucial to fighting. We have to be able to upgrade that.

I compliment the chairman. We have worked in a bipartisan way to make sure that we can upgrade our technology more quickly, to work with those companies who are developing the most innovative technologies so that we can field them quickly and get our warfighters what they need in a timely manner.

Then there is the matter of production. We have seen this in the war in Ukraine. We and our allies need to be able to produce more of the critical ammunition and weapons systems that we need to fight, and we are making progress. I think the Biden administration and, particularly, under Secretary Austin, the coalition that was pulled together in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is remarkable.

North of 50 countries are now working together to help defend Ukraine, but, also, crucially, to build up the partnerships and alliances and to make sure we have enough weapons to be an adequate deterrent to our adversaries. That process is going well. More needs to be done. This bill helps move us forward in that direction.

This bill also focuses on oversight, as the chairman mentioned. We want to free up the military to buy the systems they need by making sure that we don't continue to spend money on systems that they don't need and that we exercise proper oversight.

I particularly highlight the F-35 program. It has been a vexing and difficult program that has been over budget and underperforming for far too long. In this year's bill, we pare back on the number of F-35s purchased and put that money instead into making sure that we can get the F-35s that we are paying for, that they can reach the block 4 that has been so elusive for so many years. That is the crucial part of the job we do.

I think we have put together an excellent product. I am deeply concerned about the amendment process that will play out over the course of the next couple of days, but we will see how that plays out.

The one point I do make on this, an area of contention, has always been diversity. The other side has been critical of what the Department of Defense has done to try to recruit the most diverse people possible. I will say much more on this throughout the amendment process.

Mr. Chairman, we need to be able to access all the talent in this country, not just White men. We need to recruit women. We need to recruit from communities of color. We need to recruit from the LGBT community. That is crucial to making sure we have the talent we need. I hope that this bill doesn't undercut those efforts as we go forward.

As passed out of committee, as it stands right now, this is an outstanding piece of legislation, and I strongly urge everybody to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim), the ranking member of the HAS Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close whenever the gentleman is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I really don't have a lot more to add from my opening statement. I think we have produced an excellent product out of committee. I just want to mention one thing, and that is I think it is really important, we have passed the NDAA 63, 64 consecutive years? Sorry, I lost track at this point.

There is a reason for that. One of the most important things that we do here in Congress is to give the support to the men and women who serve in our military to defend this country. We take that job very seriously on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. We work together to make sure that we produce a

bill that supports the men and women who serve in our military and puts our country in the best position to meet its national security needs.

I believe, again, that we have done that. I don't love everything that came out of the committee bill, but then you never do. I think we worked in a bipartisan way and produced an excellent product.

I urge Members to support that. I also urge Members to reject any of the amendments that will make this needlessly divisive. I will say, we do not have a woke military. Frankly, I am offended every time I hear Members come down here and claim that we do. We have the best fighting force in the world. If you talk to the men and women who serve, they will tell you that they work very well together, and they deal with the challenges they face in a way that would make us all proud.

What we do have is an effort to make sure that we include everybody in the military, that we recruit from across the country, from across diverse populations, that we include women in a meaningful way in the military so that we can take advantage of the talent that women would bring to the military and do bring to the military.

I hope we will not go too far down the road of denigrating our military as being somehow woke and weak. It is neither. We need to continue to support it and the excellent job that the military does and the men and women who serve and their families who support them do for our country.

I urge us to support this bill, reject divisive amendments, and get us the bipartisan product that we produced out of committee.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would effectively ban electric vehicles and ban any effort to use them. Now, I will certainly agree that we are a long way off from having all electrical vehicles, but that is not what we are debating here. We are debating whether or not this should even be an option within the military.

First of all, from a readiness standpoint, having options is always a positive thing. Energy is enormously important within the military. Having access to it can be difficult, and if you have electric vehicles as an option, that gives you one greater option so that you don't necessarily have to rely on fossil fuels to power a vehicle going forward.

More importantly, the basic debate over global warming--and that is what it is, more than climate change--comes down to the belief that digging up fossil fuels from below the ground and burning them is bad for life. There is considerable evidence of this. It is placing carbon in the atmosphere that is damaging to the planet, and we need to develop alternatives so we are not 100 percent dependent upon fossil fuels.

That is the basic plan here, to save the planet, which is actually kind of important to all of us, certainly to members of the military, and certainly to the defense of our country. Eliminating this as an option goes in the exact wrong direction.

Now, the gentlewoman is correct. It is an industry that is still struggling. The fossil fuel industry, the internal-combustion engine, has well over a 150-year head start, has been very thoroughly subsidized across the board. If you build more charging stations, or if you build more electric vehicles, it will become more affordable and more viable. That is the entire point of this.

This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not going to build all electric vehicles tomorrow, but why wouldn't we want that option to preserve our planet and move forward? An outright ban on electric vehicles within the military does not make sense.

I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

Mr. Chair, the biggest issue here is that we keep hearing about climate politics. It is not climate politics. It is climate policy.

I have reminisced about this before, but back in the 2008 campaign, Republican nominee John McCain and his Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, were in favor of addressing climate change. There was a bipartisan agreement, but then Barack Obama had the nerve to get elected President and pursue those policies.

All of a sudden, it became partisan. All of a sudden, we decided that the planet isn't, in fact, warming and isn't, in fact, a problem, so we are just not going to worry about it anymore.

That doesn't change the basic facts that it is warming and that fossil fuels are contributing to it, and developing alternatives is going to be crucial to our national security going forward.

This isn't politics. This is basic policy. The lengths to which people opposed to these basic facts will go never ceases to amaze me, like the argument that we can't have electric vehicles come to our aid because they will be sitting there uncharged. Let me assure you that as basic readiness, they will be charged in the same way that gas tanks are currently full.

It is not impossible to have electric vehicles work and function for us. They are doing it all over the world.

Please reject this amendment and understand the need to get us to a more sustainable energy future.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this is a very problematic amendment. I mean, we all have parochial interests in our district that we want to protect, but one thing our committee has worked very hard to do is to not put those peripheral interests ahead of the broader interests of the Department of Defense and the national security of this country.

No determination has been made to alter or close Parris Island at this point, but it is being examined for a lot of the reasons that the maker of this amendment stated. For this body to come in and make a political decision to block DOD from being able to analyze that data in a fair and unbiased way is an enormous mistake.

This is the mother of all slippery slopes. I don't think there is a single Member in this body who doesn't have some interest in their district affected by the DOD. They have a base, they have a particular defense product that is maybe being manufactured there, and we could pass an endless array of amendments telling DOD that they can't touch anything in our district. That is the road to an incredibly ineffective, inefficient Department of Defense.

We need to give the Department of Defense the ability to make their decision based on what is in the best interests of the country and the best interests of our national security. There are issues around Parris Island that they are trying to manage due, ironically, to some of the climate change problems that the previous amendments that we have considered in here are studiously trying to ignore, so maybe if we could work on that so that we didn't have the climate change problem, we wouldn't have to worry about this.

However, that point aside, again, we can't be passing parochial amendments that simply try to protect things in our district. DOD needs to analyze the data, the facts, and make the decision on where to allocate resources and where to base based on what is in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to clarify one point. I did not say that Parris Island is not at risk. I think you have outlined exactly why Parris Island is at risk.

What I said was a determination has not been made, and it has not been made. I would like the Department of Defense to have the opportunity to make that determination based on the best facts available, not on the parochial interests of Congress saying, no, you can't even consider it.

I don't know how this is going to come out. I don't think anybody knows for sure how this is going to come out. I do know that Congress shouldn't be standing in the way of a factual analysis to figure out what the best decision is.

This amendment takes away any sort of factual analysis and just says under no circumstances can you reduce, much less close Parris Island. That is the wrong approach, and it ties DOD's hands in a way that serves parochial interests. It does not serve the interests of our national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I don't have an enormous problem with this amendment. The 1033 program is very controversial, as we will get into in the amendment that follows. As to how they prioritize the program within its existing parameters, I can understand that that is debatable going forward, and I am certain that the border communities that the gentleman described have the needs described, but there are a lot of communities across our country that have needs when it comes to dealing with crime of one kind or another.

The 1033 program provides a wide variety of equipment. Prioritizing one group over another, I am not sure that it is justified. Yes, the needs for law enforcement in those areas and those communities are great, but I would have to hear the argument as to why the needs for other communities are not great. It seems like it would be equal across the board.

I would urge opposition to maintain the flexibility for the Department to make those decisions based on their own priorities, not on how Congress has directed it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman answered a question that I didn't ask. I don't doubt the need that you describe in those communities. The question that I asked was why are other communities' needs not as great, which is a more complicated question. Nor do I disagree that there is a time and a place for Congress to prioritize and say this is more important to us.

It just seems to me that there are criminal justice problems out there. In the communities that have tried to defund the police, by the way, they are not asking for these programs, so you don't need to worry about competing with them, sadly. That is a problem which I think I agree with the gentleman on, but not a problem in this case.

My only issue is not with the need of the communities that you are prioritizing, it is an issue of, well, how can we say that those needs are greater than the needs of other communities, that maybe drug and crime problems are not confined to the border, as I think many, many Members can tell you. That is the prioritization that I am more interested in an answer to, how we should balance that.

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

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

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

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

The 1033 program has been highly controversial because it has led to some pretty substantial pieces of military equipment being transferred to law enforcement--vehicles, in particular--and, to some degree, led to the militarization of the police in the past.

Over the years, we have worked to try to get a delicate balance. I agree with the gentleman that the 1033 program is important and incredibly helpful to local law enforcement.

There are some on my side who don't agree with that, who would like to see the 1033 program banned. There are others on the other side who would like to see it wide open. We have, over the years, as I said, worked to strike a balance between those two things.

Supporting local law enforcement with excess military equipment is what the 1033 program does. It is equipment that is owned by the DOD but that they no longer need and that they can transfer to local law enforcement.

Obviously, you don't want them transferring a tank or a missile launcher or a whole bunch of other things, so there are restrictions on that. From time to time, we debate what those restrictions should be.

The most crucial part of this amendment that I find problematic is it eliminates the executive's ability to do that by not just changing the executive orders that are currently in existence but prohibiting any future executive orders that would reexamine that question.

For that reason alone, and because of the delicate balance that we have tried to strike on the 1033 program, I oppose this amendment and wish we would keep the 1033 program where it is and how we have worked it out over a series of Congresses going back years.

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

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

Just to repeat the arguments that I made, I think we have struck the right balance on the 1033 program. We should not upset that balance, nor do I support removing the ability of the President, any President, to issue an executive order on this very important and sensitive program that has impacted communities across the country.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

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

Mr. Speaker, the dishonesty that we have just heard is illustrated by what Mr. Jordan just said, his selective quote from Mr. Hur's report. He said: ``Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice- presidency when he was a private citizen.''

The report does say that, but he neglects a sentence a paragraph later: ``However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'' That is deceptive.

Secondly, as the majority well knows, the President asserted executive privilege in this matter. Maybe that was proper, maybe not, but the way to contest executive privilege is not by a contempt resolution. It is by going to court and letting the court decide whether the exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. For that reason also, this resolution fails.

Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee, under Republican control, has spent the last 18 months and 20 million taxpayer dollars in a desperate search to find something, anything, that they can use to damage President Biden and to protect Donald Trump.

Other committees have gotten into the act as well, spending untold taxpayer money not to benefit the American people, not to feed hungry children, not to address our housing crisis, and not to improve our healthcare system, but on a single-minded quest to follow every rightwing conspiracy theory in the vain hope that it might lead to some evidence of wrongdoing.

What exactly have they delivered to the American people on their investment? Nothing. No evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachment, no wins of any significance. The Republican leadership knows that if they don't come up with something to show for the millions of dollars they have spent, the MAGA political base may stay home next November.

They are scrambling in a desperate attempt to look like they have accomplished something. They were fervently hoping that Special Counsel Hur would indict President Biden for mishandling classified documents so that they could attack President Biden and misdirect the American people away from Donald Trump's treacherous handling of classified information.

However, the special counsel cleared Mr. Biden of wrongdoing for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr. Hur's gratuitous and widely contradicted comments about the President's memory.

What do our Republican friends do when an investigation turns up short? Simply put, they engage in fantasy. That is what they are doing here today. Unable to come up with any wrongdoing by the President, they have now trained their sights on the Attorney General. They accuse him of withholding key evidence, but the Attorney General has substantially complied with their every request. Sometimes he has been too responsive, in my opinion, given the obvious bad faith of the MAGA majority.

The DOJ has produced 92,000 pages of documents since Republicans took control of the House last year and has made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings, and briefings. That is more pages of documents and more witnesses than the Trump Justice Department produced to Congress in 4 years. Just last week, the Attorney General himself spent more than 5 hours testifying before the Judiciary Committee.

With respect to the subpoena at issue in this contempt resolution, the Department turned over all the information Republicans asked for. There has been no obstruction, only cooperation. In reality, the Attorney General and DOJ have been fully responsive to Congress in every way that might be material to their long-dead impeachment inquiry.

All that remains are audio files for which the President has asserted executive privilege. In a letter to Chairmen Jordan and Comer, the Department of Justice noted that producing the audio recordings would ``raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to conduct . . . high-profile criminal investigations; in particular, investigations where the voluntary cooperation of the White House officials is exceedingly important.''

The chairmen claim that they need those records to understand the pauses,

pace, and tone of the conversation. This is absurd and clearly pretextual. In any event, it does not outweigh the extensive concerns expressed by the President and the Department.

Moreover, with respect to the recording at issue in this report, a complete certified transcript has already been provided to both committees, and no credible allegation has been made that these transcripts have been altered in any material way. The only thing that has not been introduced is the recording itself, something that in the wrong hands can be easily manipulated.

That is not an idle concern. Deepfakes and misleadingly edited videos and recordings have proliferated in recent years. Last year, a witness testifying in a closed-door deposition told us that she was the victim of a manipulated video made by a third party but shared widely by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who refused to take down the video even after it was abundantly clear that it was manipulated. That video contributed to a flood of death threats against the witness.

This isn't really about a policy disagreement with the DOJ. This is about feeding the MAGA base after 18 months of investigations that have produced failure after failure.

Like most of the bills House Republicans have pushed on purely partisan lines, this contempt resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today.

This resolution may boost Donald Trump's spirits before his sentencing, but it will almost certainly not convince the Department of Justice to produce the one remaining file in question. Like the broader impeachment effort before it, this contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt, destined to fail from the very start. As I said before, if they were really interested in getting this recording, they would contest the assertion of executive privilege in court, not bring a contempt resolution against the Attorney General.

The American people actually need us to do important work. I am tired of these games, and so are the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just attacked Special Counsel Smith. This dangerous attempt to demonize anybody who would hold Donald Trump accountable for his actions is despicable and it is a full-out assault on the basic tenets of our democracy.

I want to remind my colleagues that these types of actions have consequences. They affect the lives of many men and women who have dedicated themselves to public service and upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2024, article from The Washington Post by the Honorable Merrick Garland titled: ``Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end.''

[June 11, 2024]

Unfounded Attacks on the Justice Department Must End

(By Merrick Garland)

Merrick Garland is attorney general of the United States.

Last week, a California man was convicted of threatening to

bomb an FBI field office where hundreds of agents and other

employees work. In one of his threats to the FBI, the man

wrote: ``I can go on a mass murder spree. In fact, it would

be very explainable by your actions.''

These heinous threats of violence have become routine in an

environment in which the Justice Department is under attack

like never before.

In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that

go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and

necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal

and dangerous.

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund

particular department investigations, most recently the

special counsel's prosecution of the former president.

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and

spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the

judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a

case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a

jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the

Justice Department.

They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the

FBI's law enforcement operations that increase the risks

faced by our agents.

They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate

our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly

singling them out.

They come in the form of false claims that the department

is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of

an election. Such claims are often made by those who are

themselves attempting to politicize the department's work to

influence the outcome of an election.

And media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to

ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its

work and its employees.

We will not be intimidated by these attacks. But it is

absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk

their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing

their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long

guided the Justice Department's work.

In my first job at the Justice Department some 45 years

ago, I worked on what would become the department's first

edition of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. That set of

rules for prosecutors enshrined what every department

employee lives by every single day: an unwavering commitment

to the fair and impartial application of our laws. That

commitment has been sustained by dedicated career

professionals who serve across administrations of both

political parties.

The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal

investigations based only on the facts and the law. We do not

investigate people because of their last name, their

political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where

they come from or what they look like. We investigate and

prosecute violations of federal law--nothing more, nothing

less.

We do this not only because of the principles that have

long guided our work, but also because we know that our

democracy cannot survive without a justice system that

ensures the equal protection of law for all its citizens.

The Justice Department will continue to uphold its

obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the

right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions,

beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for

our democracy. They are normal.

But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and

threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not

normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics

will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.

Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice

Department's employees are dangerous for people's safety.

They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop.

It is absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long guided the Justice Department's work. I would also remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the conviction of Mr. Trump was in a State court in New York having nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have spent the last 18 months in a futile effort to dig up dirt on President Biden, which has culminated in their epic failure of an impeachment inquiry. This resolution is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face with the MAGA- sphere.

They seek to hold the Attorney General in contempt even though he has already turned over all the underlying information they requested in their subpoena. This resolution will not change that fact, but facts have never been the animating force behind their investigations.

It is a show, and apparently, the show must go on even though the script hasn't turned out the way they wanted. Nevertheless, the reviews are in, and it is a flop, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and to put an end to this farce.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today's rule is a tale of two Congresses.

On the one hand, we have the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which is a bipartisan bill, the result of good faith negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense. This NDAA accommodates the diverse interests of Members of the House in ways that, while inevitably not satisfying everyone on every point, represent compromises that ensure the bill can become law.

Attached to this rule are two nakedly partisan and groundless contempt resolutions based on manufactured allegations, conspiracy theories, and bad faith arguments designed solely to smear President Biden in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

In the first example, we see Congress at its best. In the second, we see Congress at its worst.

First, the NDAA: The fiscal year 2025 NDAA is a solid bipartisan package designed to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense.

I applaud the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their evenhanded, bipartisan work to produce a bill that addresses priorities and concerns from all across the country. Like all negotiated bills, there are policies I agree with and disagree with, but that is how negotiation and compromise work.

Of particular note is that this year's NDAA would implement long- overdue reforms to improve military recruitment and retention, a growing concern as our armed services have struggled to meet recruiting targets over the past decade.

The reforms in this bill are the result of an in-depth, bipartisan study led by Representatives Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan into the factors impacting recruitment and retention. It should be no surprise that the main concerns facing our servicemembers are the same as those of many American families: wanting to earn enough to support a family and to afford good housing, childcare, and medical care.

This NDAA increases pay and benefits for junior servicemembers. It fixes dilapidated military housing. It increases military housing benefits. It fully funds childcare assistance programs so that all eligible military families can receive the benefits. It strengthens programs to support military spouses.

It is a disgrace that we have servicemembers living in poverty, servicemembers and member families who go hungry, and servicemembers who aren't able to take care of their children and families.

I am glad that the Armed Services Committee came together on these reforms. They will go a long way in fighting poverty and hunger and will encourage more people to enlist in military service.

This NDAA also makes significant investments in our national defense. The bill funds a range of programs to support our domestic defense industrial base. These programs will help maintain and create jobs throughout the country and ensure that we can meet the demand for munitions and weapons systems to support our own military needs and those of our allies.

Finally, this NDAA makes needed cuts to wasteful defense programs to keep the top-line spending in the bill at a flat 1 percent increase over last year's amount.

All in all, while there are plenty of policies that I disagree with, the overall bill is solid and should garner the support of a large majority of House Members.

However, despite the best efforts of our Armed Services colleagues, it looks like House Republican leadership has decided to politicize the NDAA, just as they did last year.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans made in order dozens of rightwing MAGA amendments that will poison the NDAA's bipartisan support. These amendments, many of which are likely to be adopted by the House's extremist Republican majority, would restrict access to abortion care for female servicemembers and block efforts to promote diversity and address discrimination in our armed services.

In doing so, House leadership is, once again, politicizing one of the few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement in the House, while ignoring the real needs of those who serve our country.

Last year, when House Republicans pulled this exact same stunt, it killed bipartisan support for the NDAA for the first time in decades. This week Republicans have decided to repeat that mistake.

Additionally, last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected multiple bipartisan amendments to the bill. Republicans rejected an amendment from a Member of their own party to add 4,000 special immigrant visas to resettle our Afghan allies who supported our troops throughout that conflict and who we promised to protect.

Republicans rejected another Republican amendment to adopt the Major Richard Star Act, which would fix a longstanding prohibition that prevents medically retired veterans from receiving their full earned benefits. That is a provision that has the support of over 300 Members of this House.

Republicans rejected a bipartisan amendment to provide cancer screenings for civilian DOD firefighters, who have been disproportionately exposed to cancer-causing PFAS forever chemicals. These screenings would help detect cancers early and save lives.

Lastly, Republicans rejected an amendment that would ensure that female servicemembers, who place their lives on the line for their country, would have the freedom to access reproductive healthcare when they need it.

Republicans rejected these sensible amendments, prioritizing over two dozen partisan culture war amendments, including amendments to relocate a Confederate monument back to Arlington National Cemetery and to defund DOD efforts to remove white nationalists from our military.

In rejecting other amendments, our Afghan allies, our veterans, our firefighters, and women servicemembers have to take a back seat to the

Madam Speaker, we are all very grateful to the House Armed Services Committee for the bipartisan product that they have put forward here, but as we said before, it is the inclusion of multiple poison pill amendments all put forward by extremists from the House Republican majority and the failure to include both bipartisan and Democratic amendments that are really empowering both this rule and this bill.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Following the abhorrent Dobbs decision, which ended the protections for reproductive rights provided by Roe v. Wade, many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

Reproductive healthcare is vital, and denying these rights to millions of women around the country and our servicemembers and their spouses is shameful and dangerous. That is why House Democrats are fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who simply want to access and provide needed care.

H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act will prevent States from trampling on women's constitutional rights and keep fundamental healthcare services available across the country.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) to discuss this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

Madam Speaker, I do agree with some of the gentleman's comments about the need to increase pay and benefits for our junior servicemembers and service families, but I have to strongly disagree with his attempts to turn this into an attack on the President.

We have seen multiple reports from experts talking about the challenges that our servicemembers face, and the challenges we see to recruitment are because our economy is so strong that people have other better-paid and better-resourced opportunities under the current economy than they have for years. That has been suppressing recruitment and retention, so I think his economic analysis is a little off.

I did think when he was getting up here, he might be here to speak about some of his amendments that were not being made in order. Last night, the majority of the Rules Committee, the Republican majority, voted unanimously to disallow amendments that would protect our Federal firefighters from cancer-causing PFAS chemicals.

These were bipartisan amendments, and the gentleman from Wisconsin was a cosponsor of them, so I assumed that when he was here today, he was here to speak against the rule. I think perhaps that is the best choice until we have a more bipartisan approach to the amendments that should be made in order.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

As you may have guessed, I strongly oppose this rule. The rule likely guarantees that there will not be bipartisan support for the NDAA, and like last year, this means that the House will get steamrolled by the Senate.

As we have discussed this morning, the two contempt resolutions included in this rule are not a serious legislative effort but a manufactured dispute between House Republicans and the Attorney General, which threatens to undermine rather than promote the rule of law.

We would be a lot better off with a clean rule for the NDAA, stripped of all the partisan nonsense, so we can focus on our core constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

Conducting oversight over our Armed Forces and funding our national security are two of Congress' most important responsibilities, but the kind of politicization we see from the House Republicans is disrespectful to the American people, unbecoming to this Chamber, and signals to our servicemembers that we don't have their backs when they need it the most.

As the NDAA goes to the floor this week, I call on my colleagues to reject the poison pill amendments that have been presented and maintain the bill's bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1287 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1287, providing for consideration of three measures including H.R. 8070, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, to be considered under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 350 amendments in order.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of House Report 118-527 and the accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule also provides that upon adoption of the resolution accompanying House Report 118-527, the resolution accompanying House Report 118-533 is adopted.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 8070, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

Madam Speaker, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, as well as the leadership of Ranking Member Adam Smith, the bipartisan fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 57-1. It significantly improves the quality of life for our servicemembers. It deters our adversaries, supports our allies, and focuses on our military readiness and our national security.

According to several top national security officials, our country is facing serious threats to our democracy and freedom at levels that we haven't seen since World War II. It is imperative for our national security that our servicemembers and their families are supported and that they can focus on their mission.

Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established the Quality of Life Panel to evaluate the quality of life of our servicemembers. The panel found that servicemembers' quality of life concerns are a major cause of low morale and family stress, which are undermining recruitment, retention, and military readiness.

The National Defense Authorization Act puts our servicemembers and their families first and addresses many of the issues found by the Quality of Life Panel. The legislation improves servicemembers' quality of life by boosting compensation, improving housing, ensuring access to medical care, enhancing support for military spouses, and increasing access to childcare.

Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support our warfighters at home and abroad and to deter our adversaries.

It is the NDAA's intent to ensure that our Nation's military is organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries. Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nations or terrorist groups must know that they will never succeed in a war with the United States of America. The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring lethality, defending Israel, securing our southern border, and providing oversight and accountability.

To deter our adversaries, we must continue to modernize our military. The National Defense Authorization Act boosts innovation providing for the development and fielding of AI, quantum computing, and autonomous systems.

The legislation also removes Communist China from our supply chain and prevents the Communist China spies from infiltrating our research institutions inside the United States of America.

The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and supports our Indo-Pacific allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries.

This legislation also supports our ally Israel as they defend themselves from Hamas terrorists by expanding U.S.-Israel military exercises while also fully funding cooperative missile defense programs.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the Armed Services Committee included language that saves our taxpayers over $30 billion by cutting inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.

We live in the greatest free nation on Earth, and it is imperative that we support those who protect it. The fiscal year '25 National Defense Authorization Act is another step in that direction.

Moving on to the resolutions recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Madam Speaker, at the beginning of February, Special Counsel Robert Hur released his report on President Biden's mishandling of classified documents that were discovered in his home and office in 2022.

On February 27, the Judiciary and Oversight Committees issued identical subpoenas compelling production of certain documents, including audio and video recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter. These subpoenas were not complied with, Madam Speaker. The audio recordings were never produced. On May 16, the morning of the markup of the contempt report in the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, President Biden exerted executive privilege over those recordings.

Madam Speaker, the audiotapes are the best evidence that the transcripts provided to the committee accurately reflect the true content. Additionally, President Biden waived any potential assertions of executive privilege when he released the transcript, and he has not set forth any valid basis for invoking executive privilege.

Madam Speaker, the following things are true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were not complied with.

It is extremely clear: We wouldn't be here on the floor today discussing the matter if that was not the case.

The American people deserve to know the truth. Even news outlets in this country, nearly a dozen, in fact, have sued for access to the recordings.

Madam Speaker, Attorney General Garland has chosen not to comply with the subpoenas, and because of his choice, he must be found in contempt of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the following things remain true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were not complied with.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend and the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend.

Madam Speaker, the following things are true: The subpoenas were legally authorized. The subpoenas were not complied with.

I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the words ``except for'' are even being used by my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle. People don't have the option to comply partially with a subpoena. Nobody in this country does.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in the House of Representatives.

The fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act fully authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs. It strengthens our military and makes important steps to address the security threats America faces from our adversaries, including China, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations.

It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our ally Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern border.

Critically, Madam Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families, who sacrifice so much to defend us. Madam Speaker, it provides a 19.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House has the responsibility to protect its Article I authority to conduct oversight and investigations. This week, Attorney General Garland has a choice: either comply with the lawfully issued subpoenas completely and turn over the tapes or be held in contempt.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. 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. 8070.

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

Mr. Chairman, for the first time in decades, this year's Defense bill carries a different short title. It is the Servicemember Quality of Life and National Defense Authorization Act.

We did that to underscore the tremendous gains this bill makes toward improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. No servicemember should have to live in squalid conditions. No military family should have to rely on food stamps to feed their children. No one serving this country should have to wait weeks to see a doctor or mental health professional.

That is exactly what many of our servicemembers are experiencing, especially our junior enlisted personnel. This bill goes a long way toward fixing that. It includes a 20 percent pay raise for junior enlisted. It expands allowances for housing and food and improves the cost-of-living calculation.

The bill authorizes $766 million over the budget request to improve existing barracks and build new ones. It enables the services to pursue public-private partnerships to provide better unaccompanied housing.

The bill reduces dangerous healthcare wait times by waiving referral requirements for specialty care and expanding the number of DOD doctors and nurses with special recruitment and pay authorities.

The bill improves access to childcare for military families by providing over $206 million to build new DOD childcare centers and fully funding childcare fee assistance programs to offset the cost of private childcare.

The bill helps military spouses gain and retain employment by making it easier for them to transfer professional licenses between States. It also gives the DOD the authority to quickly hire military spouses and keep them employed during changes in duty stations.

We are making these historic improvements in the quality of life of our servicemembers because, now more than ever, we need to recruit and retain the best and brightest. That is because the threats our Nation faces, especially those from China, are more complex and challenging than at any other point in the last 40 years.

To deter those threats, the fiscal year 2025 NDAA reforms acquisition authorities and fosters private-sector innovation to speed the fielding of game-changing new technologies that will give us the advantage in a conflict with China. It strengthens our security partnerships with Taiwan and Pacific allies. It fully funds the modernization of our nuclear deterrent, protects the U.S. military bases, the defense supply chain, and academic research from Chinese espionage.

The act builds the logistics network in the Pacific the military needs to carry out operations against China, and it includes new investments to retool and revitalize the industrial base to ensure it can deliver the systems we need to prevail in any conflict.

In the face of the growing threats from China, it is also critical we restore our military's focus on lethality. The fiscal year 2025 NDAA does that by ending divisive policies that have hurt unit cohesion and military readiness. We all know that deterring these threats will be an expensive endeavor, but we acknowledge there are limits as to what we can spend.

That is why this NDAA is focused on rooting out waste in the DOD. If weapons systems are not responsive to the threats we face, we cut them. In fact, this bill includes over $30 billion in savings from cutting systems that can't survive in a conflict with China and by reining in programs, like the F-35, that are not delivering on requirements.

I thank the ranking member and his staff for their tremendous work in putting this bill together. This is a truly bipartisan bill. It passed out of committee 57-1. It executes on hundreds of hours of bipartisan oversight conducted by Members and staff over the past few months.

It will help revitalize the defense industrial base. It will build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China, and it will provide historic improvements in the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, May 29, 2024.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing you concerning H.R.

8070, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2025. H.R. 8070 contains provisions that fall within the Rule

X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important

legislation, I am willing to waive the Committee on the

Budget's right to a sequential referral. I do so with the

mutual understanding that by waiving consideration of the

bill, the Committee on the Budget does not waive any future

jurisdictional claim over the subject matter contained in

this or similar legislation, and the Committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address

any remaining issues within its jurisdiction. The Committee

also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference convened

on this legislation or similar legislation and requests your

support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 8070 and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in your committee report and in the Congressional

Record during floor consideration of H.R. 8070. I look

forward to continuing to work with you as this measure moves

through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Jodey C. Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague and the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), a very special member of our committee who not only chairs the Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation but also was the chair of the task force that spent last year studying the quality of life issues that our military families have been struggling with and helped put together the package that we have in this year's bill that addresses those issues.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague from my committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Chair, I have one additional speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Chair, first, I thank the ranking member, my friend, Mr. Smith, who has been an outstanding partner. The Democratic staff has been very, very good to work with in fashioning this bill in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican staff, and I thank them for doing that once again.

I take great pride in the fact that our country, for 63 consecutive years, has found a way to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, no matter which party is in the majority, no matter which party is in the White House. That speaks well of our country. I want this to be the 64th year that we do the same thing.

Our national security is about to be challenged in ways that we have never imagined. The bill before us today will go a long way toward preparing our industrial base and our warfighters to overcome those challenges.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I strongly support requiring all of our NATO allies to meet their 2 percent obligation, but arbitrarily cutting off funding to NATO with a war raging in Eastern Europe and Putin threatening us with nuclear weapons is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

It also shoots us in the foot. Our force posture in Europe is dependent on the investments we make to NATO. We need a stronger NATO for our own defense.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.