Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 547. Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Norman

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on rollcall No. 548. Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Norman

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4394, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024. This bill makes devastating cuts that will harm consumers, take us backwards in the green energy transition, and threaten good-paying, clean energy jobs. Just as the heat is being turned on for the winter, House Republicans are putting forth H.R. 4394 which will raise energy costs for more than 250,000 American households. Additionally, H.R. 4394 includes provisions that limit the Department of Energy's ability to set energy efficiency standards for home appliances. Mr. Speaker, why wouldn't we want more efficient appliances? Contrary to Republican talking points, the Biden administration is not coming to take your gas stove. That is simply untrue. The Department of Energy does not have the authority to ban gas stoves or other appliances based on fuel sources, nor should it have the authority. The growing threat of climate change is real, and in order to protect our planet, we must reduce carbon emissions and embrace a green energy future. Congressional Republicans have long been hostile to investments in clean energy and they are using H.R. 4394 as an opportunity to slow down the transition to green energy and rescind the historic investments in clean energy made in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. H.R. 4394 includes a 42 percent cut to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. This office is critical to developing manufacturing, building efficiency, clean energy like hydrogen and solar, and weatherization technologies that are essential to our nation's growth and resilience in the face of climate change. As we make the transition to green energy, opportunities for clean energy jobs are growing. In 2022, clean energy companies employed nearly 60,000 Minnesotans--and jobs in clean energy grew 50 percent faster than the state's overall economy. In fact, the biggest sector in Minnesota's clean energy industry is energy efficiency. Over 43,000 Minnesotans work to manufacture and install energy efficient appliances, lighting, heating, ventilation, HVAC systems, and advanced building materials in commercial buildings and homes. The drastic cuts in this bill and the attack on energy efficiency incentives will threaten the vibrancy of Minnesota's clean energy economy. Mr. Chair, instead of reevaluating their extreme 2024 funding bills and working to find a bipartisan path forward to fund the government beyond November 17th, House Republicans are moving forward with passing bills that have no chance of ever becoming law. With this bill, House Republicans are harming consumers, threatening our clean energy economy, and failing to address the existential threat of climate change. For all of these reasons, I must vote against H.R. 4394.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 771, the bipartisan resolution condemning the heinous October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas that have resulted in the senseless deaths of Israelis, Palestinians, and more than 30 American citizens. Hundreds remain missing and many are held hostage--including women, children, and even infants. Savage attacks killing innocent civilians are never justified, and the Hamas attacks of October 7 were perpetrated against Israeli communities for the goal of annihilation. These crimes cross a red line and must be unequivocally condemned as they are clear violations of international human rights law. Israel has a right to defend its citizens from this Hamas terrorism. But Israel's response must be proportional and consider the innocent Palestinian lives at stake in Gaza. In the past two weeks, we have seen an escalating wave of violence across the region. It is clear that a broader conflict must be prevented. That is why I have publicly called on President Biden to work with all involved parties on negotiating an immediate regional ceasefire to avoid the loss of more innocent lives. A one-sided ceasefire is not sustainable and will fail. It must include Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other parties, with the support of the international community. The international community must also continue working together to facilitate critical humanitarian aid to Gaza--the population of which is nearly half children--so Palestinians have access to food, water, medicine, and fuel. I also recognize that this violence is not just a far-away matter; it is hitting close to home. Many families here in the United States and overseas are living in unimaginable fear while mourning those they have lost. I am hearing from many Jewish constituents and community leaders who are in pain and who have loved ones among the injured, killed, or missing. I commend the U.S. State Department for their work bringing Americans home from Israel, but more work needs to be done--there are American citizens in Gaza who seek to come home and have been prevented from doing so. I am deeply saddened and outraged about the brutal murder of an innocent six-year-old boy in Illinois, because he happened to be Palestinian-American. The violent, hate-filled targeting of Wadea AI- Fayoume or anyone else based on ethnicity or religious affiliation is unconscionable and should be condemned by everyone. Hate has no place in America, and Antisemitism and lslamophobia must not be tolerated. It is my hope for the future that every Israeli child and every Palestinian child to be tucked into bed at night by their parents without fear of bombings and perpetual violence. All people deserve safety and security, and the only sustainable path forward is one where international human rights and international law are at the forefront and democratic ideals are upheld.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise in support of condemning the outrageous Hamas terrorist attacks that have resulted in the senseless deaths of Israelis, Palestinians, and more than 20 American citizens. Hundreds are missing and many are feared to be held hostage--including women, children, and even infants. Savagely attacking and killing innocent civilians is never justified. These crimes must be unequivocally condemned as they are clear violations of international human rights law. Hamas has a singular goal: to destroy Israel. Their attacks were not targeting the military or government; they were perpetrated against Israeli communities for the goal of destruction. Hamas uses fear, terror, and intimidation against Israelis and it uses the same tactics against the Palestinian people, putting targets on the backs of innocent people in Gaza. Nearly half of the population of Gaza are children--most having lived their entire lives under a brutal, devastating blockade that deprives them of basic human necessities and no prospect for a better future. I have a solemn responsibility as a Member of Congress to shape policy. I have spoken out against governments, extremist groups, those exerting power over marginalized populations--whether they are our enemies, our allies, or within our own nation--and I always speak up for those suffering and in defense of human rights. The October 7 attack by Hamas was a gross violation of human rights. It crossed a red line. This was a strategic, coordinated, multi-modal attack by Hamas. It leaves deeply concerning questions about what happened in the lead-up to this massacre and what the future holds. Any response must consider the innocent lives at stake. The United States must not choose to escalate conflict with a knee-jerk reaction of providing more weapons for an offensive that will certainly take the lives of more innocent civilians and children. The reports of casualties in Israel and Palestine are stunning, and I fear these numbers will only grow in the coming days. This attack is not a far-away matter; it is hitting close to home. Mothers, fathers, the young, and the elderly--those near and far--are now living in unimaginable fear while mourning those they have lost. I am hearing from many Jewish constituents and community leaders who are in pain and who have loved ones among the injured, killed, or missing. I stand with them, I mourn with them, and I share their fear of what is to come. My hope and my dream for the future is for every Israeli child and every Palestinian child to be tucked into bed at night by their parents without fear of bombings and perpetual violence. All people deserve safety and security--and in the wake of this heinous attack, the international community is in agreement that Hamas must be stopped. The only sustainable path forward is one where international human rights and international law are at the forefront and democratic ideals are upheld.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4368, the Republican FY24 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Act. Less than one week before the government is set to shut down, House Republicans brought forward a slate of funding bills that have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law by President Biden. With this bill, Republicans have doubled down on their cuts to the critical rural programs America's farmers rely on. The bill was so extreme that nearly 30 Republicans voted against it when it failed to pass the House Thursday evening by a vote of 191-237. In July, Republicans passed out of the Appropriations Committee an Agriculture appropriations bill that provides just $17.2 billion--a funding level so low, it was last seen in 2007--and $9 billion below what was provided in 2023. It slashes loans that provide support for distressed farmers and funds for rural electric cooperatives. It underfunds direct loans for water and waste removal, money that ensures rural Americans have access to clean drinking water, and cuts the cash value voucher in the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC), undermining more than 100,000 Minnesotans' access to nutrition assistance. But Mr. Chair, it seems as though the bill passed out of the Appropriations Committee didn't go far enough. With the passage of the rule on Tuesday, an additional 14.15 percent across-the-board cut was implemented on every program contained within this bill. In addition, another $1.2 billion was cut from the vital Food for Peace Program, a program that ensures people around the world have access to nutritious surplus food grown by America's farmers. This bill also contains harmful and partisan policy riders meant to appease the most extreme right-wing members of the Republican Caucus. The bill reverses a decision by the FDA to allow mifepristone to be dispensed in certified pharmacies to patients with a certified prescriber, instead of only in hospitals, clinics, and medical offices. Mifepristone has been safely used by more than 5 million women over the last two decades for safe and effective medication abortion. Congress acting to overturn a science-based decision by the Food and Drug Administration is yet another attempt by the majority to limit women's access to reproductive health care. Mr. Chair, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Instead of using this final week of Fiscal Year 2023 passing bills that will never become law, House Republican leadership should have focused on keeping the government open for the American people.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4367, the Republican FY24 Department of Homeland Security Act. This bill is another example of House Republican leadership appeasing the most extreme members of their caucus and is another funding bill that has no path to become law. With the passage of the rule on Tuesday, Republicans decided to hold this bill hostage. For H.R. 4367 to even be sent to the Senate, Republicans are demanding that the Senate pass and the president sign their extreme immigration bill, the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2). When it passed the House in May, President Biden had already stated he would not sign it. This week, Republicans continued to add to the chaos when the House Rules Committee met late at night Wednesday and sent another rule to the floor with self-executing provisions that cater to the most extreme Republicans. Members like Representatives Gaetz and Boebert demanded significantly reduced H-2B visas that help fill workforce shortages and Republican leadership caved to their demands in order to pass the bill. By continuing to only negotiate with the farthest right members of their conference, House Republican leaders are not serious about preventing a government shutdown. H.R. 4367 contains misguided investments that double down on failed border policy by redirecting $2.1 billion to border wall construction while divesting from proven, modern detection technology. The bill also contains more extreme rightwing policy riders targeting the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's ability to defend Americans against disinformation campaigns from foreign adversaries and domestic extremists. As we continue to feel the effects of a changing climate, Republicans have also cut all climate resiliency funding from the Homeland Security bill--over $748 million in investments to ensure that as the global climate changes, America is prepared for the effects of stronger storms, higher temperatures, and increased migration. The Department of Defense has declared climate change a national security threat, as regions become uninhabitable, and people are forced to move from their homes. By passing this Homeland Security bill, Republicans continue to ignore the fact that climate change is a real and imminent threat to American lives and communities. I cannot support a partisan Homeland Security bill that does not focus on real solutions to the issues our country faces.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 4665, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024. This bill makes devastating cuts to our foreign assistance and will undo years of progress in the areas of humanitarian aid, bolstering our national security, and combatting the effects of climate change. With this bill, House Republicans have completely abandoned our country's leadership on the global stage and made our country and other countries around the world susceptible to destabilization. This bill eliminates U.S. support for climate adaptation, sustainable landscapes, and clean energy programming. Climate change is an existential threat to every single one of us--and this bill does nothing but bury our heads in the sand. These divestments will not only be devastating to our environment, but also to our national security. Cuts to climate programs will leave the Department of Defense more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Without adequate funding to address the climate crisis, people around the globe will be driven from their homes, unable to feed their families, and will fall deeper into poverty. At a time when a historic number of refugees are fleeing conflict and instability, the United States will turn its back and be unable to respond to and assist our allies. The majority has authored this bill to satisfy the most extreme among us without considering the real-life consequences for our allies and for the world's most vulnerable populations. This bill zeros out or dramatically cuts several critical peacebuilding funding accounts, which will severely impact the United States' ability to prevent violent conflict, build sustainable peace, and save lives. This bill hurts women and children--codifying the expanded version of the harmful global gag rule, cutting foreign assistance for family planning and reproductive health, and prohibiting funding to the UNFPA, the United Nations reproductive health agency. Mr. Chair, this bill fails to protect Americans and cedes leadership to our adversaries. With this level of funding, House Republicans are ignoring reality and making it impossible for the United States to engage peacefully and constructively with the international community-- all while our adversaries are engaging aggressively. Millions of lives are on the line, and instead of making a serious attempt to address these problems, the majority has injected politics into our foreign policy and have authored a bill that has virtually no chance of passing in the Senate. For all of these reasons, I must vote against H.R. 4665.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, in just over 24 hours, if we cannot come to an honest, responsible, and bipartisan solution on a continuing resolution to fund federal agencies. we will be forced into a government shutdown. Our constituents are relying on us to work together to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to fund their government. Failing to do so will harm this nation's children and families, our service members and veterans, our seniors and our next generation, and all those who depend on the services and investments our government provides. Let me be clear: This is a completely avoidable, politically- manufactured crisis, but it will have real consequences for the American people. The looming shutdown is the result of a failure to govern by the House Republican Majority, who have allowed this body's legislative work to be undermined by an extreme MAGA faction that controls GOP leadership. Democrats in the House, President Biden, and a bipartisan Senate have been working for a solution to prevent a shutdown. This included compromising to meet Republican demands to cap spending levels for the next two years under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Biden less than four months ago. But that wasn't enough for these GOP extremists. Instead of doing the serious work of moving bipartisan bills at those agreed upon levels, this Republican Majority has chosen chaos. They have chosen to waste months pursuing devastating cuts to the services the American people rely on, slashing investments in keeping people and our planet healthy--all while loading up their appropriations bills with toxic culture war provisions that are discriminating and harmful to our families and our communities. And the Continuing Resolution they have brought to the floor today is nothing more than a continuation of their denial of the serious work that needs to be done. It does nothing to avoid a shutdown. Instead, Republicans are holding the American people hostage with a demand for a 30 precent cut across the board to federal agencies. This would result in a 74 percent cut to our federal investments in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), literally leaving families in the cold that is already settling in back home in Minnesota. They are proposing to cut nutrition support for Women, Infants, and Children by 30 percent, taking away a lifeline for hungry families and pregnant women. They want to see investments in the health of our communities gutted: Their bill would mean the loss of thousands of research grants to cure Alzheimer's disease, cancers, and heart disease; Thousands of my constituents would lose access to care at their Community Health Centers, as would millions more rural and underserved families nationwide; Millions more who are struggling with opioid addiction or mental health crises would be denied life-saving support services. There is no end to the harm and hurt that this extreme Republican Continuing Resolution would cause to our families, our economy, and our communities if passed into law. But Speaker McCarthy knows that there is no chance that this bill will become law because Democrats in the House, a bipartisan majority of Senators, and President Biden would never support this betrayal of our responsibilities to our fellow Americans. Until the House Republican Majority stops catering to the bullies in their caucus, we cannot move forward on funding the federal government. So I invite my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the chaos. Join us in doing the serious work of funding our government and meeting the needs of our constituents. With just five reasonable Republican votes, we can force Speaker McCarthy to take up a vote on a bipartisan solution. America deserves better leadership than what the Chaos Caucus has to offer.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Republicans spent 3 weeks trying to bring the Defense appropriations act to the floor. Three times it went to the Rules Committee. The first two times, the rule failed on the floor, and it failed, in part, because a small minority of Republicans do not support any Ukrainian assistance, including support for Ukraine that has been in the base Defense bill for 9 years. The Republican Conference knew for weeks that this was a problem for them, and that is why they have created this pseudo minibus that we have been working on the past few days. It is loaded with extreme social policy riders to appease the far right so that their party can advance a Defense bill. Earlier this week, Republicans could have used the Rules Committee to strip out the Ukraine funding from the Defense bill. They chose not to do so then. Instead, the Rules Committee made two Republican amendments in order to strike any Ukrainian funding. Then that amendment came to the floor, and they asked the House to do its will. The Biggs amendment was rejected by this House by a vote of 104-330. The Gaetz amendment was also rejected 93-339. In a closely divided Congress, this is about as clearly a bipartisan vote as you can get. In both cases, the Republicans and the Democrats stood together with Ukraine, but the Republicans found out that they still had a problem with the extreme right in their party. Even after the votes, the vocal Republican minority threatened the Speaker again to take down the Defense bill, all because the votes didn't go their way, so here we are today. The Speaker has sent the Defense bill back to the Rules Committee to override the will of this House in its most basic democratic process of amending bills. It is ironic that the Speaker is so focused on passing the defense bill in such an undemocratic way. He has wasted weeks letting the far right abuse the Republican majority, while at the same time failing to address the impending government shutdown. Today, these extreme Members are abusing the entire House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, Members, the lessons from the last 3 weeks could not be more clear. When you don't stand up to bullies, they continue to bully you. That is what is happening here. The bullies in the Republican Conference have won once again at the expense of this institution. That is why I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Let's stand up to the bullies in this Chamber. Let's strip this outrageous provision from the rule and return this House to regular order where every vote matters, and when the vote of the majority of the House speaks, it is respected.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Speaker and this House have catered to the extreme right again because they refuse to write a Defense bill that can get bipartisan support. So, here we are again, debating Ukraine security assistance. As I said during the rules debate, we debated this funding twice yesterday. The Biggs amendment was rejected by the House by a vote of 104-330, and the Gaetz amendment was rejected by this House 93-339. We debated this. This House considered similar amendments in the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this summer. At that time, the Greene amendment was rejected by a vote of 89-341, and the Gaetz amendment was rejected by 70-385. These amendments were rejected because a majority of this House stands for preserving democracy. We stand for working with our democratic allies in preventing Vladimir Putin from seizing land through force, and these amendments were rejected because of the strong, bipartisan support for including consistent funding for Ukraine in the base Defense bill. The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative has been part of the base bill since fiscal year 2015. The support has included training for Ukrainian troops, munitions, spare parts for vehicles, weapon systems, and medical supplies, and the Department of Defense has mechanisms in place to monitor our assistance. That is the work of the DOD Security Assistance Group-Ukraine. I also have traveled, and I traveled with subcommittee Republicans and Democrats to review how the training and equipping the Ukrainians were moving forward because, I agree, congressional oversight is important. The funding has been critical to ensure that Ukrainians could withstand Vladimir Putin's invasion last year. Congress began this support after Russia's unprovoked, illegal seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Five different chairs of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee across both parties have consistently included this funding in the base Defense appropriation bill, and that includes Chairman Calvert, myself last Congress, and Chairwoman Granger when she chaired the subcommittee. We included this funding because Vladimir Putin is a bully. He threatens just not Ukraine but global stability. Putin uses paramilitary groups like the brutal Wagner organization to destabilize African nations using murder, rape, and torture to achieve his foreign policy goals. In February 2022, Putin wanted to take all of Ukraine and overthrow this democratically elected government. Russia deliberately fired cruise missiles into apartment buildings, shopping malls, schools, daycare centers, and even hospitals. It is clear: Putin is a war criminal, and he must be confronted. That is why this Congress has consistently included funding as a priority in this base bill--to help Ukraine fight back against this illegal, unjust invasion of their territory. It is important that we, along with our allies, continue to support their fight for freedom. The rest of the world is watching, including other authoritarian nations, as to how the United States, NATO, and other allies continue to support Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and others bipartisanly to support this bill one more time again and vote for supporting Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a leader in the Ukrainian Caucus here in the U.S. Congress.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times this week, this Congress has consistently provided this funding for the last 9 fiscal years. I hope we will work hard to make sure that this funding returns in conference back to the base bill in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Providing training and equipment to Ukraine has helped them withstand Russia's full scale invasion, and continuing this support in the base bill on a bipartisan basis is important to maintaining that effort. I had the privilege of meeting women from Ukraine who are in the Ukrainian ambulance corps. They drive around in subcompacts. They drive around without bulletproof vests and whatever first aid equipment they can find firsthand to save lives. I have had the honor and privilege of meeting people who are going through our training courses that we do with NATO in Germany, as the chair was referring to. I had the privilege before the invasion happened in February 2022 of meeting the mayor of Kyiv where he was just asking if he could make sure that the United States had the right caliber bullets for the hunting rifles and some of the guns that the Ukrainian citizens in Kyiv and the surrounding areas had so they could support their military should the invasion occur. We did that. It was an honor to work with those who made sure that that happened. Mr. Speaker, recently I had a friend in Nisswa, Minnesota, who was returning home from Kyiv where she had not only time to spend with her mother and go mushroom hunting and watch firsthand the post-traumatic stress that her family is dealing with, but saying goodbye to a cousin who is returning to the front lines after healing from a wound. Ukrainians are fighting. They are fighting for their very existence, and they are fighting for their strongly held democratic values that we share and, as I said, for their very existence. They are standing up to an authoritarian bully, and we should continue to stand up with them and support them in the ways we have been doing. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, Cyrus Salazar, as has been pointed out, is the director of the Department of Defense for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and is charged with promoting diversity within the DOD. The Department has a responsibility to make sure all Americans are welcome in the service of our Nation and that it reflects America's defense. I worked in the private sector until basically, I mean, I served part-time in city councils and that, but I worked in the private sector until I came here to Congress. I still have a lot of friends in the private sector where I represent 3M. Right across the river in Minneapolis, there are General Mills, Target, and I could go on and on with the companies that we have. These companies are competing for talent, whether it is the person who is helping you at the Target store with the checkout or whether it is the person that is being recruited to go into teaching or a person who is going to become a CEO or a compliance officer or a bank auditor. We are all competing in the workforce right now. Our labor trades are competing for the workforce. There are fewer and fewer people entering the workforce, so there is a great competition going on. These companies have diversity offices. They are going out and talking to groups that maybe have never been in the industry before. I will use the building trades again. In our building trades they are knocking down the doors going to our high schools. They have people just working on diversity, saying, these are great paying jobs, let me tell you about them. Maybe nobody in your family has been a plumber, maybe nobody in your family has been an electrician or a pipe fitter, or maybe you never worked road construction. These are great jobs for you. They are going out and they are recruiting these people. We are up against the same challenge of recruitment and retention that the private sector is. In fact, we are competing for the same workforce. Of course, in my opinion, we need to be doing some of this diversity and inclusion. The gentleman from Texas, when he quoted what was said at West Point, I totally agree, those are horrific statements and that person is gone and they should be gone. But the DOD is struggling with a challenge. Right now, our civilian workforce doesn't reflect the diversity of other Federal agencies. We are trying to get more women, more men, more everybody in this country to know that the DOD is a great place to work and that once you are there, you are going to love the job, and we are going to give you the tools in the toolbox to do it. Madam Chair, I will close with this. One of the things that I have been working on is cybersecurity and IT and linguistics. I come from a culturally rich district. If you come to University Avenue in St. Paul, the diversity of the restaurants and small businesses that are there, it will blow your mind away. It is rich in diversity. But we still find, even all being in the same neighborhoods and communities, we still have to do outreach to say you are welcome. One of those places is cybersecurity. A lot of these businesses are being hacked. They are having issues with it. We are going to the high schools and to the community colleges, and we are looking at folks like--there is a place for you in cybersecurity. They are like, me? Yeah, you. Sometimes people need to be welcomed in, they need to have the opportunity to be recruited. I really think that having someone that oversees opportunity, equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion, making sure that disability programs--we have our servicemembers who come back and sometimes have to be relocated into another position or a job, that is what this office can do. I know we have gotten down this track of how we can divide ourselves talking about diversity and inclusion. I want us to embrace it in a way to have a more unified workforce and to recruit and retain the best and the brightest to work in the Department of Defense. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time because I think we have had this discussion over and over again today.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, this feels to me like another attempt by the majority to go after minority groups in the military. Here is the history. The Reynolds Scholars Program was designed to study women in the military and was named after Lori Reynolds, a decorated female Marine Corps general. The program was established to comply with the Peace and Security Act of 2017, the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense Women, and the Peace and Security Strategic Framework, so this is something that Congress has weighed in on. Let me read the program description to you. The gentleman from Texas has read some excerpts, and I didn't see them in full context. I will take them at face value that he is upset with this, but I will read some of the descriptions for you. I can cite the sources and put them in the full remarks later for the committee to have. `` . . . women account for the majority of individuals adversely affected by today's armed conflicts, and it affirms the critical role women play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace- building.'' `` . . . advocates for the recognition of diverse perspectives that increase military effectiveness, and [b] supports the empowerment of half the world's population as equal partners in preventing and managing conflict.'' Now, I have not been to the scholarship program, but I have traveled with military, I have traveled with State, and I have been with women who have been adversely affected by armed conflicts--raped, tortured, bullied, harassed--and it is often our military and our military women who sometimes in these conflicts are having conversations with them and trying to get the facts if there have been war crimes committed. It takes a very special person to do that. It affirms the critical role, as I said, that women play in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and peacekeeping. President Bush, the Bush administration, when I was first serving in Congress, actually had me go to Yemen and speak with our military at a graduation of Yemen soldiers that we had been working and training with. Part of the message that the State Department and the Bush administration and our Department of Defense wanted to communicate was the importance of young girls going to school. In Chad, I witnessed, in the refugee camp after the Janjaweed had attacked an area, not only what had happened to the women there, but our military female leaders interacting with the troops there in Chad that we were working with, peacekeeping troops reinforcing that women needed to be treated with dignity and respect. I will end this particular part of talking about this by saying: Often when we go to build peace, whether it is sustaining the peace in Northern Ireland, whether it is looking for peace in conflict in Africa, whether it is working with terrible situations in Latin America, it is the women whom we bring to the table who can get the attention of the community, the community elders, because they talk about their children and the need for peace. I don't know if these people were graduates from this program, but I have seen where women make a difference. The male members of our military who are part of these programs are indispensable, and they are very important. As a woman who stands up for our women in the military and our allies in the military, I have to tell you, I see nothing woke, I see nothing woke about trying to understand the intersection of women and conflict. I only see it as a benefit. In my opinion, this amendment is antifemale in what it is purporting to take away from the scholarship program moving forward. I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024. As chair of the subcommittee last Congress, I understand fully the difficult process required to put this bill together. That is why I thank the minority staff here with me today, Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray, Farouk Ophaso, Ben Peterson, and Mike Clark in my personal office, and Johnnie Kaberle and the fabulous minority staff that gets to work with the great majority staff, who work so hard for all of us. I wish the bill before us was more focused on our job as appropriators, on training and equipping our troops and ensuring that our servicemembers and their families have their needs met at home. That is why it is disappointing to see the majority use the appropriations process and the Defense bill to push an extreme social policy agenda. The riders included in this bill divide. They do not unite. Here are just a few examples. The bill prohibits the Department of Defense's policy to ensure that servicemembers and their families have access to leave and travel allowances for basic reproductive healthcare. The Department's policy is legal under Federal law. The Department of Justice has concluded that fact: ``The Department of Defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for servicemembers and their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that DOD cannot itself perform due to statutory requirements.'' Why is it important that the DOD itself cannot perform due to statutory requirements? Well, first, to be clear, I do not support the Hyde amendment, but let me address it and what this prohibition does even to services legal under the Hyde amendment. It prohibits the DOD from using funds or facilities to perform an abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not in keeping with the spirit of the Hyde amendment. What does that mean to the nearly 20 percent of our force who are women? They do not get to choose where they serve. Eighty thousand of those women are stationed in States that restrict reproductive healthcare. If you serve in those States and are pregnant because of rape or are on a base that does not offer obstetrics and gynecology services, then you must travel. You must travel out of State for healthcare that you are entitled to. This bill interprets the Hyde amendment in a way that was never intended. Many servicewomen and dependents will lose access to the exceptions of the Hyde amendment if they are not allowed to travel to seek the healthcare that they need. This language, in fact, is a de facto national abortion ban, and I believe using our servicemembers to do that is shameful. Young women will refuse to serve. Women will exit the force because of this. Husbands and fathers will not want to serve in States where their families will be negatively impacted. That is why I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to strike this provision, but the majority chose not to make it in order. I wish they had. I wish we all would have had the courage to bring this to the floor and allow a debate that our servicemembers deserve. The majority has also cut programs for diversity, equity, and inclusion, which will discourage recruitment from all across America. The private sector is embracing programs like this to keep a happy, healthy, forceful workforce. There is language in here that bans critical race theory, but it goes far beyond that, Mr. Chair. In fact, the bill seeks to define what can and cannot be taught in our military academies on whether or not certain topics cause discomfort. This language reads like a ban on teaching American history. Sometimes facts are uncomfortable. As a former social studies teacher, I want you to know, Mr. Chair, I find this outrageous. How can our military academies tell the history of the Civil War without teaching about slavery? That is uncomfortable. How can they discuss the story and history of desegregation in the military without talking about the Jim Crow laws that our Black servicemembers had to struggle with when they returned home from war? That is uncomfortable. We should be celebrating that the DOD is about to be led by two distinguished Black Americans for the first time in history, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General C.Q. Brown, who is incoming to this position. Their service shows us how building a diverse workforce can take us into a proud future. There are provisions in this bill that are offensive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and that will impact who serves. The ban on gender-affirming care will drive transgender servicemembers out of the military. Why, Mr. Chair, do we have an IRS provision on the tax treatment of individuals who hold the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman in this bill? It is not germane. Words matter. Divisive riders will hurt the military, undermine readiness, and make our national security weaker. They must come out of this legislation if we are to gain bipartisan support for this to become law. Now, turning to the numbers, the majority has funded this bill at $826.4 billion, very close to the President's budget, but I am concerned about cuts in two areas. First, the majority has made a $714 million cut to military climate programs and banned the assessment of climate impacts on the Department. We know that climate change is a national security threat, and it drives conflict. Ask our Indo-Pacific Commander. He will tell you that climate change impacts how United States forces operate. Our military installations also face threats from climate change right here at home. Look at the $10 billion in damage from severe weather events on installations, like Tyndall Air Force Base, Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. This spring alone, a typhoon seriously damaged Anderson Air Force Base in Guam to the tune of $4 billion, and that is just the Air Force cost. When we cut climate programs, we pay for it on the back end. I also oppose the $1.1 billion in cuts to civilian personnel in this bill. Ten years ago, Congress directed DOD to cut civilian personnel by $10 billion over 5 years. We achieved no substantial savings. We shifted the workforce from civilian employees to expensive contractors. Mr. Chair, I have a long history of bipartisan cooperation, and I am proud of that. I am confident that Chair Calvert and I can find a way to get agreement in conference so that we can move the Defense spending levels forward, but I have to say again how disappointed I am that the majority has included these extreme social policy riders. They will undermine the force of today, discourage building the force of tomorrow, and leave us weaker as a nation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, which is so important to the defense of our Nation.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), who is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as a very important member of the Committee on Armed Services. As many military leaders have told us, diplomacy, defense, and development go together. The more we don't spend in those venues, the more bullets we have to buy.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, everyone is welcome to serve in an All- Volunteer Army. We need everyone to feel that they are welcome to serve in our All-Volunteer Army, and that sometimes means doing a little extra outreach. I had to do that with my military academies to let all the students know that this was a great opportunity for them to get a great education and serve our country. It was outreach. It was inclusion. It reached out to diversity. It has made our military academies stronger for that. The bottom line for me is, if you are willing to take the oath of office, if you are willing to put your life on the line for our country, and you can get through boot camp and want to serve our country, you are welcome to serve. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), who is a fabulous member of the Subcommittee on Defense and invaluable in helping us understand our challenges in the Indo-Pacific.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as we have no further speakers. I say again how sad I am to be disappointed to see these divisive riders in the bill. They are all to gratify the extreme right of a few people in the Republican Party. I also don't make a habit of complimenting the Senate, but we should take note that their appropriators are operating in a bipartisan fashion. Their Defense bill was passed out of committee 27-1 because it had no divisive language, and it made cooperation possible. Go back and watch our markup of this Defense bill, and you just have to ask yourself: Are we doing our job as appropriators? We are not discussing our increasingly broken military healthcare system, which I have heard from military family and servicemembers, both here at home and when I have traveled abroad on bases; the lack of support for mental health; the lack of access, even here in the United States, to immediate healthcare concerns for themselves and their family members. As I pointed out, we are solely now facing lack of obstetrics and gynecology on our military bases right here in the United States, making necessary the travel that the Department of Defense put in for women servicemembers and women family members to get their full healthcare needs. We could be talking about the merits of supporting Ukraine and how the democracies are coming together to show Communism and terrorism that we stand united in our goals and principles; or we could be talking about how to jump-start shipbuilding to compete with what China is already doing in the Indo-Pacific, but we spent our markup arguing about extreme social policies that have no place in this bill. Now we are running out of time with the shutdown fast approaching. Our servicemembers and their families have made a tremendous, considerable sacrifice to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them a government that stays open and pays them on time. Now, I know Chairwoman Granger and Chairman Calvert and I believe that we can get this job done, but the majority must show that it can govern in a bipartisan fashion and work with us to get these bills done. That is what we have done plenty of times and what I am hopeful we will do in the future. For right now, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's get the appropriations process back on a bipartisan track. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. It contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of Member priorities on both sides. We have no objections, and we encourage the adoption of this amendment, and I wish this in the spirit in which this bill had originally been written. If the gentleman from California has no other comments, I am ready to yield back.

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