Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974.

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

I rise in strong opposition to this Republican rescission package.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans are trying to take deconstructing government to a new level. They are proposing to take $15 billion in Federal funds away from the citizenry and investment in our economy budgeted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, medical innovation, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure projects, and the list goes on.

Why?

They are doing so to pay for a tiny fraction of their $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich. This is just another example of their irresponsible governance.

What is on the chopping block?

With this rescission package, the majority would cut the balances in the Children's Health Insurance Program by $7 billion, simply send them back to the Treasury. They would cut funding when we should be investing in critical services for children and families.

They would cut funding that helps workers who have lost their jobs due to trade access health insurance.

They would cut funding for AmeriCorps and prevent more people from serving vulnerable populations in their communities.

They would cut funding for critical healthcare infrastructure projects.

Just a few months ago, we used these funds to replace the Biosafety Level 4 laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control. This lab is necessary for handling the most highly pathogenic organisms, such as Ebola, other hemorrhagic fevers, and smallpox. This is a critical piece of public health infrastructure. Why do Republicans want to cut its source of funding?

They would cut funding for programs that rural America depends on, rural housing programs, rural water programs. For example, it would rescind $15 million from the Value Added Producer Grant Program, a vital lifeline for small businesses in rural America.

Well, I want to remind Americans that the President and his House allies are betraying the promise they made to the American people, Mr. Speaker.

In March, we agreed to historic and urgently needed funding for our families. The omnibus funding bill for 2018 made important investments in health, education, and job programs. It made critical investments that boost the middle class.

It was not easy. We worked hard to come to an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement that benefits the people of this country. And now, months later, the Trump administration and House Republicans are violating the spirit of that agreement. It is not a serious way to govern.

This is money for our children, not for the President to claw back to placate fervent conservatives who maintain their drumbeat on Twitter and TV.

And what do Republicans get for breaking their word, going back on their promises and taking from children?

Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, the actual impact of this rescission package would amount to $1 billion over 10 years. That is less than 1 percent of the Republicans' $1.5 trillion tax scam for the rich. In fact, it is one one-hundredth of a percent.

If Republicans are so worried about spending, why not rescind the money from the tax giveaway to corporations that are using it to buy back stock? They are not raising wages.

Well, they appear to be beholden to the lobbyists and the insiders who have profited so exorbitantly from that gift. And according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 83 percent of the tax scam benefits will go to the top 1 percent.

And those big boosts to paychecks? They have not materialized.

You look at Walmart. They spent $20 billion on stock buybacks for their shareholders; yet, according to the Roosevelt Institute, had Walmart instead dedicated that money to workers, they could have raised wages to more than $16 an hour. They did not.

Mr. Speaker, budgets, spending, appropriations, and rescissions reflect our values, and it is clearer than ever that President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and the Republicans in the Congress value corporations and the wealthy, not people who work for a living or those who are the most vulnerable. They rig the rules for the rich and rob from the poor to pay for it.

Congress must reject President Trump's proposal and put forth policies that work for the middle class and families and for those who are most vulnerable, not balance the budget on their backs.

The American people would be far better served if Congressional Republicans joined with Democrats to fund critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and protecting our retirement programs.

When teachers are protesting across the country for fair pay, Republicans want to go backwards. When Americans are stuck in jobs that do not pay enough to live on, Republicans want to go backwards. When 40 percent of households cannot afford the basics of a modern, middle class lifestyle, Republicans want to go backwards.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable, and the American people deserve better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

But the gentleman hasn't told us that the money they take from CHIP is not going into programs for children. It is going back to the Treasury, so we will take a look at cuts to Head Start, maternal child health programs, childhood immunization, newborn screening, child lead poisoning prevention, and many others. Tell the whole story.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. RYAN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, we have 50-some percent of the people in this country who can't withstand a $500 emergency.

Our pension system is collapsing. Our financial aid system is collapsing.

We have got to make a decision to reinvest back in this country. And the Republican leadership here is disinvesting in the United States. We are seeing it with the stock buybacks, we are seeing it with the tax cut, and now we are seeing it with the rescissions package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition from First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Committee for Education Funding, National Housing Conference, Service Employees International Union, faith organizations, and other national organizations.

First Focus Campaign for Children,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2018.

Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of First Focus

Campaign for Children, a bipartisan national organization

dedicated to improving the health and well-being of our

nation's children, to express our strong opposition to H.R.

3, the so-called ``Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary

Programs Act.''

Unfortunately, the proposed rescission of $15 billion in

spending authority included in H.R. 3 targets children in

about half of all the cuts. Moreover, of all the thousands of

programs in hundreds of departments and agencies across the

federal government, the Children's Health Insurance Program

(CHIP), which just went through a nearly two-year

reauthorization process that was finally passed more than

four months past its expiration date, is targeted for more

than $7 billion of the proposed cuts.

Over the two-decade history of CHIP, it has--in tandem with

Medicaid and private health insurance--cut the uninsured rate

for children by more than two-thirds. During this recent

reauthorization process, a nationwide poll conducted by the

Kaiser Family Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans

felt that Congress should make the extension of CHIP funding

a top priority. The program has always had strong bipartisan

support, as it did this year.

CHIP is financed as a block grant, which means that its

funding is arbitrarily capped and fails to adjust to changes

in unforeseen or unanticipated need, such as economic

recessions, epidemics, changes in funding to the program to

improve access to care, or natural disasters. Consequently,

in the early years of CHIP, the program faced some difficult

moments whereby some states imposed waiting lists and

enrollment freezes when federal funding failed to meet the

needs of children. Those indefinite waiting lists and

enrollment freezes were imposed without regard to disability

or need, including children with cancer, cystic fibrosis,

severe asthma, and other life-threatening or severe

conditions.

In recognition of the fact that waiting periods and

enrollment freezes were threatening the lives and well-being

of children, Congress revamped CHIP's financing in a number

of ways, including the creation of CHIP's Child Enrollment

Contingency Fund in 2009. The CHIP contingency fund is set at

20 percent of overall CHIP spending and acts as a critically

important backstop that protects against unforeseen or

unanticipated federal funding shortfalls that threaten the

health of children.

During the lengthy two-year most recent bipartisan

reauthorization of CHIP that culminated in a six-year

extension and a subsequent addition of four more years for a

total of 10 years, there was no discussion or debate about

changing the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, as it

has worked to protect the health of children. And yet, the

Administration is now proposing and Congress is considering

H.R. 3, which would slash the CHIP contingency fund by $1.9

billion, or nearly 80 percent, and undermine its very

purpose.

In making this proposal that targets CHIP for the bulk of

its proposed cuts, the Administration argues that the

contingency fund ``will likely not be spent'' and points to

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that the cut

doesn't save any money as confirmation that it probably won't

be harmful to children. And yet, during the lengthy CHIP

reauthorization process, the Administration never proposed

slashing the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund from 20

percent of the allotments to just 3-4 percent, as the

rescission would do.

Even worse, the proposed rescission of the contingency fund

fundamentally fails to understand the very purpose of a

contingency that, by definition, is ``a future event or

circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with

certainty.'' Neither the Administration nor CBO can guarantee

that there will not be an economic recession, a health

epidemic like Zika, or a natural disaster, which are all more

likely during the forthcoming summer months. In fact, CBO

doesn't ``score'' such events for that very reason.

As a result, the proposed rescission or raid of the CHIP

contingency fund by $1.9 billion, or 80 percent, undermines

the very reason for the fund, which is to protect the health

coverage of children against unanticipated or unforeseen

circumstances, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or even

Hawaii's currently unanticipated erupting volcano.

Another critically important point to make is that the

proposed rescission to the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency

Fund would not save money. The contingency fund is set at 20

percent of the overall CHIP allotment each year, so any money

raided from the fund this year is automatically restored in

the following year. In other words, over a two-year period,

this proposed rescission would not save a single penny

because any money raided from the contingency fund this year

would be restored in the following year.

Consequently, the only effect of the proposed $1.9 billion

rescission the CHIP contingency fund would be to needlessly

put the health and well-being of our nation's children at

risk. In other words, H.R. 3 unnecessarily gambles with the

health of our children under the guise that there probably

won't be unanticipated or unforeseen events that might cause

a state or states to need to tap into the contingency fund.

It is also important to point out that the CHIP extensions,

including the CHIP contingency fund, that were passed just a

few months ago were fully paid for. In fact, according to

CBO, the CHIP reauthorization saved billions of dollars.

Therefore, CHIP should not be the target of a rescission

package, and yet, it shockingly accounts for 46 percent or

almost half of all the proposed reductions in H.R. 3.

For these reasons, we stand with more than 500 other

national, state, and local organizations from across the

country that wrote a letter to Congress in opposition to the

CHIP cuts proposed in H.R. 3. As the letter reads, ``The nine

million children and families who depend on CHIP have already

faced months of uncertainty, when its funding expired before

Congress took long-overdue action to extend CHIP funding for

ten years. After breathing a short sigh of relief, however,

the long-term stability and protection these families fought

to ensure is once again in jeopardy. Our organizations urge

you to protect children and families, and to reject any

proposed cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program.''

Sincerely,

Bruce Lesley,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about spending. Let's talk about the Republican tax cut. It was rigged for the rich. It gave 83 percent of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. They raised taxes on 86 million middle class families. It cost $1.5 trillion.

We have a staggering national debt. They want to reduce that deficit. Well, then why don't they go ahead and rescind the money from the tax giveaways to the corporations? The corporations are just using it to buy back stocks and not to raise any wages.

What we ought to be doing is reinvesting: create jobs; help children and families, not millionaires and billionaires.

If they wanted to do something about the CHIP program, they would have made it permanent or they would take that money and reinvest it in programs that have to do with children, not send it back to the treasury. What they ought to do is to find those resources from their rich donors and others and put them back into where they belong, to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters in opposition to H.R. 3:

May 22, 2018.

Dear Representative: The undersigned 151 national

organizations strongly urge you to reject the $15.3 billion

rescissions package proposed by the Trump Administration as

well as other rescissions messages that may be subsequently

offered. These cuts would violate the agreement enacted in

the Bipartisan Budget Act, by eliminating funds that make

fairer levels of domestic appropriations possible, so that

unmet needs in public health, education, job training,

housing, and other essential areas may be addressed.

The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is targeted

for nearly half the cuts in the rescissions package. Nearly

$2 billion of the rescinded funds could reduce CHIP's

capacity to respond if enrollment unexpectedly rises, as in

the aftermath of a disaster, large layoffs due to plant

closures, or an overall economic slowdown. Congress just

enacted a long-overdue 10-year reauthorization of CHIP; it

should not undermine that bipartisan agreement either by

tampering with CHIP in this package. Another $5 billion would

renege on the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act agreement, which

in part counted on the availability of unspent CHIP funds to

pay for needed increases in other services of importance to

children and families.

The rescissions package also includes an $800 million cut

to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a program

which according to the Congressional Budget Office will save

$3 for every $1 spent between 2017 and 2026. It makes no

sense to end such a cost-effective investment. Nor does it

make sense to describe this package of cuts as putting ``. .

. our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path'' when the recently

enacted tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy and corporations,

impose a $2 trillion cost.

Congress made important progress in the FY 2018 Omnibus

appropriations bill because its bipartisan agreement allowed

for increases in child care, opioid treatment, and other

services. Congress should now turn its attention to building

on this progress in FY 2019. Reneging on the hard-won

bipartisan agreement now will make further gains extremely

difficult. With the limited number of legislative days before

you, please do not be distracted by undoing past progress.

We cannot emphasize enough that basic needs programs have

lost ground after years of reductions, making it extremely

important that you do not undermine the agreement to start to

reverse these downward trends. Adult and youth job training

has been cut nearly 15 percent since FY 2010, adjusted for

inflation. If we are serious about helping people to get good

jobs, we must undo these cuts. Many other services need

rebuilding, such as home heating and cooling assistance (cut

nearly 38 percent since FY 2010), juvenile justice programs

(cut more than 40 percent), maternal and child health

programs (cut 14 percent), and special education funding (cut

between 7-11 percent since FY 2010). In an analysis of more

than 180 human needs programs, the Coalition on Human Needs

found that nearly 70 percent are still at lower levels than

in FY 2010.

Please reject this rescissions package, and turn instead to

your real responsibility: to provide adequate resource to

address the unmet needs for education and training, child

care, housing, health care, and other essential services.

Sincerely,

Action on Smoking and Health; ADAP Advocacy Association;

Advance CTE; African American Health Alliance; AFSCME; AIDS

United; Allied Progress; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Association on Health and Disability;

American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic

Action (ADA); Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC;

Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges;

Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; Autism

Society of America; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend the

Arc Jewish Action CAEAR Coalition; Campaign for Youth

Justice; Center for Community Change Action; Center for

Employment Opportunities (CEO).

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for

Popular Democracy Action; Center for Public Representation;

Ceres Policy Research; Child Care Aware of America; Child

Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund;

Children's Leadership Council; Children's Advocacy Institute;

Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation; Coalition for Health

Funding; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human

Needs; Community Access National Network (CANN); Congregation

of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces;

Council on Social Work Education; Disciples Center for Public

Witness; Dominican Sisters Conference; Dominican Sisters of

Peace; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative.

Equal Rights Advocates; Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America; Every Child Matters; Faith in Public Life; Families

USA; Family Focused Treatment Association Food & Water Watch;

Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); Forum for Youth

Investment; Friends Committee on National Legislation;

Friends of the Earth--US Girls Inc.; Grounded Solutions

Network; Health Care for America Now; Healthy Teen Network

HEAR US Inc.; Hispanic Federation; HIV Medicine Association;

Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC Housing Works, Inc.;

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Justice in

Aging; Lakeshore Foundation; Leadership Conference of Women

Religious.

League of Women Voters of the United States; LIFT; Main

Street Alliance; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NARAL

Pro-Choice America; National Action Network; National

Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National

Alliance of HUD Tenants; National Association of Councils on

Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Counsel

for Children; National Association of Regional Councils;

National Association of Social Workers; National Association

of State Head Injury Administrators; National Association for

Bilingual Education; National Black Justice Coalition;

National Coalition for the Homeless; National Coalition of

STD Directors; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its

low income clients).

National Council of Jewish Women; National Crittenton;

National Disability Institute; National Domestic Workers

Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment

Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association;

National Housing Trust; National Indian Education

Association; National Juvenile Justice Network; National Low

Income Housing Coalition; National Network for Youth;

National Network to End Domestic Violence; National

Organization for Women; National Urban League; National WIC

Association; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; New Progressive Alliance; North American

Passionists, JPIC; People Demanding Action; People For the

American Way.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poligon Education

Fund; Provincial Council Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians);

Public Advocacy for Kids; Public Citizen; Rachel Carson

Council; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition;

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; RESULTS;

Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition; Safer Foundation;

School Social Work Association of America; Service Employees

International Union; Sinsinawa Dominicans; Sisters of Charity

of Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Charity

of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Sisters of Mercy South Central

Community; SocioEnergetics Foundation; Somerset Development

Company; SparkAction; StoptheDrugWar.org; Strategies for

Youth, Inc.

Students or Sensible Drug Policy; The Arc of the United

States; The Children's Partnership; The John Leary

Organization; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human

Rights; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church

and Society; Transporation Learning Center; Treatment Action

Group; Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; UnidosUS; United Church

of Christ; United Methodist Women; Voices for Progress; W.

Haywood Burns Institute; WildWest Institute; Woodhull Freedom

Foundation; Woodstock Institute; Workplace Fairness; Young

Invincibles; Youth Service America; YWCA USA; ZERO TO THREE.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 923 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

House Resolution 923 provides for the consideration of two important bills related to Federal spending of taxpayer dollars.

The first, H.R. 5895, the combined appropriations bill, containing three individual fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills, provides the annual funding for these Federal departments.

The second bill, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, is a critical bill to honor the House Republicans' commitment to eliminating wasteful Federal spending.

The resolution before us this afternoon provides for a structured rule for H.R. 5895. Yesterday, the House passed the first rule pertaining to this bill, providing for 1 hour of general debate on the measure. Today's rule makes in order 40 amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans.

House Resolution 923 also provides a closed rule for H.R. 3, the rescissions package, but does execute Leader McCarthy's amendment which incorporates President Trump's revised and updated spending proposal.

One hour of debate time for H.R. 3 is provided, divided and controlled equally by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides the minority the customary motion to recommit on both pieces of legislation under consideration.

H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, funds a net total of $144 billion in base discretionary spending, $33 billion for defense, and $112 billion for nondefense purposes. The totals reflect the amount specified in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

Division A of the appropriations package funds the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act at nearly $45 billion,

providing for national security and energy and water infrastructure investments.

The bill would increase Federal investments in nuclear security by $600 million above fiscal year 2018, then totaling more than $15 billion.

As President Trump has repeatedly stated, our Nation must modernize its aging nuclear forces. They are the centerpiece of our deterrent strategy, and we cannot allow them to degrade to a point where they become functionally useless.

To prevent this outcome, nuclear weapons activities, especially Navy nuclear reactors, all continue to receive funding. Congress must not leave the United States unprepared while our adversaries continue to advance their own nuclear weapons programs.

Division A also improves the security of our energy infrastructure. Most Americans take for granted the ability to easily access electricity, but that convenience is tenuous. The electric grid is massive, it is complex, and it is vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks. These threats have become increasingly likely as more operations go online or are connected to a network which is not secure.

This bill appropriates $117 million to ensure that our energy infrastructure operators have the resources they need to develop these defenses.

Additionally, the bill supports the completion of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, helping to ease the risk and burden of storing nuclear waste in temporary storage sites across the country.

In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act gave the Department of Energy authority to regulate incandescent light bulbs through the law's excessive energy efficiency standards, effectively killing free market competition.

Therefore, I submitted an amendment that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out these onerous enforcement standards. This amendment has been included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill every fiscal year since 2011, and I look forward to continued consumer choice in this market.

Division A includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In Texas' 26th Congressional District that I represent, the Army Corps has been instrumental in ensuring the thorough maintenance, repair, and safety of Lake Lewisville Dam, which sustained damage due to heavy rains in the north Texas area in 2015.

This is just one example of the important work the Army Corps performs throughout the United States, and the bill increases funding of the agency to more than $7 billion for fiscal year 2019.

The bill also repeals the massive overreach of Federal authority known as the waters of the United States rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This rule changed the definition of navigable waters subject to Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, placing significant costs on property owners.

Last, the bill prohibits the use of nuclear nonproliferation projects in Russia without certain notifications from the Secretary of Energy.

Division B appropriates $3.8 billion for the legislative branch. This encompasses the House of Representatives and joint operations with the Senate.

The House of Representatives is funded at $1.2 billion, which is $25 million below the President's budget request. Funding also supports Capitol security and police forces, services for visitors, and Capitol operations and maintenance.

The Capitol Police are funded at $456 million, an increase of $30 million above fiscal year 2018. Last year, we learned just how vital the Capitol Police are when they responded to and stopped a shooter who opened fire at a congressional baseball game practice.

The bravery and skill demonstrated by those agents are what allows Members of Congress, our staff, our support personnel, and visitors to go to work or visit the Capitol complex every day without fear. They deserve our full support.

The Office of Compliance is appropriated over $5 million for employee and Member workplace rights training. This funding will also support a dispute resolution process that is fair and accessible for all.

The bill also includes almost $580 million for the Government Accountability Office so that it may continue its vital work of oversight and reporting on how Federal programs are using taxpayer dollars.

Two important things that the bill does not fund are a cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress and allowances for former Speakers of the House.

Division C of the appropriations package provides over $96 billion in discretionary funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, an increase of more than $4 billion over fiscal year 2018.

Nearly all of the increase in funding goes toward supporting the efforts and the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robust funding for Veterans Affairs will ensure that those who have served our country have access to quality services.

This bill includes a total of $194 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $9 billion more than fiscal year 2018.

Importantly, this bill provides more than $71 billion for Veterans Affairs medical care and more than $1 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to deploy a new electronic health records system that aligns with the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have been promised since 2006. This will allow our veterans an easier transition into the Veterans Affairs system than they experience today.

The bill also includes funding for reducing the disability claims backlog so that veterans will receive more timely compensation.

Yesterday, the VA MISSION Act was signed into law. American veterans deserve the best possible care, and this bill gives the Department of Veterans Affairs the resources to work towards providing that care for the 7 million patients who are expected to receive Veterans Affairs treatment in fiscal year 2019.

Additionally, this bill funds construction, operation, and maintenance of housing for our troops and medical and education facilities at over $10 billion.

This is the first step toward funding the government and its essential programs for fiscal year 2019. This year, Congress will do its job to ensure smart, efficient, and appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

H.R. 3, the second bill contained in today's rule, is the rescissions package to cut stagnant and unused prior-year Federal funding.

President Trump submitted and recently revised a proposal to rescind approximately $14.5 billion of budget authority, affecting 15 Federal departments and agencies. These include unobligated balances from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program and the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; the Department of Housing and Urban Development's capital fund; the Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund; the Department of State's Complex Crisis Fund; and unnecessary funding for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, among other things.

President Trump recently revised his request to withdraw the proposed rescission of emergency Ebola funds as well as supplemental appropriations for Superstorm Sandy recovery and to decrease proposed rescissions to Housing and Urban Development's capital fund and Treasury's capital management fund.

Two provisions related to the Children's Health Insurance Program should be noted.

The first rescinds over $5 billion that was included in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 that supplements the fiscal year 2017 allotments to States. This was in addition to the annual Children's Health Insurance Program appropriation to reimburse States for Children's Health Insurance Program expenses. The remaining funds are no longer needed.

The second provision rescinds almost $2 billion made available to the Children's Health Insurance Program contingency fund, which is used to provide payments to States that have funding shortfalls. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services currently does

not expect any State to need a payment from the contingency fund during the current fiscal year.

It is important that the American people understand that these Children's Health Insurance Program rescissions will have no impact on the current Children's Health Insurance Program.

Early this year, Republicans passed and signed into law the longest and most generous extension to the Children's Health Insurance Program in its 20-year history. When House Democrats were presented this opportunity, they voted against it not once but twice.

Mr. Speaker, when Federal funds are no longer needed in an agency or have not been obligated, Congress should do the right thing and use these taxpayer dollars to reduce the deficit.

I support passage of the rule to allow debate on these important priorities. I urge Members to support today's rule and both underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, February 9 of this year, the House of Representatives passed the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program since its inception in 1996. The gentlewoman from California voted against that extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), a valuable member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that as of June 7 of this year, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided consideration for over 1,200 amendments on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, when Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor. Their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments that year in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to recognize that on February 9 of this year, the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10 years' time--was passed by the House and eventually signed into law. The gentleman from Massachusetts fought against that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's service to our country. I would point out that I worked as a physician in a VA facility in the 1970s, and I am well aware of the good work that the doctors and nurses in VA facilities provide.

I would like to point out that, in the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration expected the MISSION Act to be in place by the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Do remember that this was one of the promises that then-candidate Trump promised to the Nation, that he would make the funding of the veterans programs a priority, and I believe he has done that.

Continuing to quote from the administration: ``The delay in enacting the MISSION Act's new community care program increases the requirements to continue the VA's current traditional community care program by an additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2019.''

Here is the important point: ``The administration looks forward to working with Congress to secure this funding within the existing nondefense discretionary cap.''

I think it is fair to say there is more to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that one of the things that the Military Construction and VA appropriation does fund is the improvements to the VA Electronic Health Record. This is something that has been sought by this Congress and previous administrations going back to 2006. I am happy to say that in this appropriations bill it is being taken care of.

Three administrations is too long for that to happen. I am grateful for the focus that the administration put on this problem, and I am grateful that they have finally gotten it solved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as of June 7, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided for consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House floor. Over 570 of those amendments have been proposed by Democrats, 480 proposed by Republicans, and 190 were bipartisan. That is 46 percent Democratic amendments, 39 percent Republican amendments, and 16 percent were bipartisan.

By contrast, during the entire 111th Congress, that was the last Congress where Speaker Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, Democrats were in the majority. During the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the House floor, and, in fact, the Democratic majority blocked 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 during, actually, the first session, the first year of that Congress.

These numbers include measures where the summaries of amendments submitted are publicly available, but at that time, due to the lack of the majority's transparency, the number is likely much higher that were blocked.

Now, look, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee has made it a point

to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the Committee on Rules and share their thoughts and concerns. And as the gentlewoman knows well, there is no clock in the Rules Committee. Any Member can come and spend as much time with us as they wish.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, and H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. Both are responsible measures that take seriously our responsibility to be vigilant stewards of the Federal taxpayers' dollars.

I want to thank the President for his leadership in eliminating unused and unnecessary funding from past years, a responsible approach that until this President has been underutilized. I urge my colleagues today to support the rules and the two underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the appropriations bill we have been considering this week.

Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on.

Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer debate.

This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package, which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.

However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on?

This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr. Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be considered.

The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most closed Congress in history.

Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17 billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a $3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk among us.

This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written.

Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help.

It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we trying to do?

Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping?

That is what we are doing in this Congress.

Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation.

Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no hearings. Zero.

But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents.

Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional.

This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its benefit to the wealthiest among us.

If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier.

This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health insurance.

But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance; cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless; cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans.

What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?

I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in their communities.

Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those cuts are dumb and dumber cuts.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is only June.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important veterans programs.

Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital veteran healthcare initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

I have no doubt of the importance of the legislation this rule makes in order. However, I struggle to believe that this is the most important work we could be doing today.

Instead, perhaps we can fix the broken immigration laws that President Trump has cited as his reason for separating families and children on our Nation's border. Fear and intimidation are no way to make policy. The Trump administration has picked the cruelest way to punish those who are fleeing violence.

The result is broken families and lost children. Since October, more than 700 children have been inhumanely separated from their parents. More than 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.

Using family separation as a scare tactic to prevent families from coming to this country will never work, and it is in the same cruel mindset as using rape as a weapon of war. These families come here looking for one thing: shelter. Punishing a mother by separating her from her child is not only immoral; it is inhumane. It goes against the fundamental human right of the family unit.

Separating them from their parents is simply anti-American. However, for some reason, President Trump has repeatedly said that he is bound by the law to rip these families apart.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what is the law requiring the separation of parents and children at the border?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Speaker can't answer is that the law simply doesn't exist. However, this is the United States Congress. We make the laws. But unfortunately, this isn't what we are doing here. No. Instead, we are taking up a bill to put more guns on public lands and cut funding for energy efficiency research. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the number of amendments which were not made in order, I must oppose this rule.

This Congress is now the most closed Congress in history. It is forcing its Members to vote on bills which haven't been given a real debate. It is clear the majority is attempting to rewrite history.

Mr. Speaker, Canada did not burn the White House. The American people know better. None of the work we do today will undo their deficit- busting bill, nor will it reunite the families the administration has destroyed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, essentially, the LaMalfa amendment would prohibit funds from being used to enforce the criteria for abandoned prior converted cropland. Currently, if land categorized as prior converted cropland has not been used for agricultural purposes for 5 consecutive years, if the owner of that land wanted to fill or dredge it, they would need to get a section 404 permit from the Corps, and those are generally wetlands.

So this amendment would basically create a ``once exempted from having to get a Section 404 permit, always exempted'' standard, overturning 35 years of Federal policy.

The amendment makes a significant change to the Clean Water Act regulations, one that deserves thoughtful consideration. Under current law and regulation, activities that convert wetlands that occur as a part of existing ongoing farming, ranching, and silviculture activities do not require section 404 wetlands permits.

Let me repeat that for my colleagues. The Clean Water Act explicitly exempts certain activities from regulation, including normal agricultural activities like plowing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and maintaining irrigation and drainage ditches.

The gentleman from California wants to go further than the exemptions already in the law and in the underlying bill. In his view, wetlands should be able to be filled, even when prior converted farmland has had no action or indication of actual agricultural use for 5 consecutive years; that is, there has been no cropping, no management, no maintenance activities related to agricultural production.

I say to my dear colleague from California, it is hard to understand how prior cropland wouldn't be abandoned if none of the activities of farming are performed there for 5 consecutive years.

I would also like to point out that this specific regulation has been on the books for 35 years; yet this amendment would overturn at least 35 years of policy to create a ``once exempted, always exempted'' standard for any land that was ever used as farmland.

Now, let me tell you, additionally, why this concerns me. According to the Ohio--my home State--Environmental Protection Agency, since the late 18th century, 90 percent of Ohio's wetland resources have been destroyed or degraded through draining, filling, or other modification. Because of the valuable functions the remaining wetlands perform, including filtration to adjoining lakes and streams, it is imperative to ensure that all impacts to wetlands are properly mitigated.

Wetlands help filter impurities from water. Sediment settles out the runoff, and contaminants bind to plant surfaces in wetlands, resulting in improved water quality. Wetlands perform other valuable functions, including reducing flood flow and shoreline erosion control.

In Ohio, we also depend upon our wetlands as a haven for rare and endangered plants, and one-third of all the endangered species depend on wetlands for survival; and many wetlands are important fish spawning and nursery areas, as well as nesting, resting, and feeding areas for waterfowl.

So we should make certain that any changes we make to wetlands policy that may result in the destruction of these important ecological areas are evaluated carefully and that we not overturn decades-old policy lightly.

It is for these reasons that I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have to oppose my good friend Mr. Gohmert on this amendment.

The gentleman actually wants to prohibit funds from being used to implement any activities regarding the social costs of carbon. And this amendment tells the Department of Energy to ignore the latest meteorological data and changes dealing with weather science. And the amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful. According to this amendment, the cost of carbon pollution is zero.

I remember my first trip to New York City after I graduated from college. Thank goodness it has changed. I had a pink blouse on. By the time I finished the first afternoon, it was so full of gray spots I hardly recognized it. And I didn't know what it was. Well, it was carbon. It was fallout from the chimneys and so forth in New York City.

So we know that carbon has impacts. This amendment is tantamount to saying that weather changes and climate change have no cost and no one will get hurt. Well, that simply isn't true. Tell that to citizens in Puerto Rico who lost businesses, homes, and loved ones after Hurricane Maria, that there is no cost from weather changes.

Last year's devastating hurricane season resulted in Puerto Ricans still without power 9 months later, almost 5,000 lives lost, and almost 200,000 people displaced from their homes.

House Republicans can vote for this amendment, they can try to block the Department of Energy from recognizing the damage caused by climate changes, but they can't overturn the laws of nature.

I am amazed in my part of the country how much water is coming down now, spring rains at such fierce levels. The way they come, it is very different from when I was first growing up there.

So, in the National Climate Assessment, our Nation's leading climate scientists reiterated what we have known for years: Climate change is real, evidenced by the climate-related indicators we have observed, including longer seasons, extreme droughts, and sea level rise.

The amendment tells the Department to ignore these scientific findings. That is irresponsible and a blatant disregard to the well- being and security of our great Nation, not just now but into the future.

The truth is that unchecked climate change would have catastrophic impacts here in the United States and across the globe. They are already starting.

Those who are less fortunate will face the heaviest impact. I remember going down to New Orleans and seeing the Ninth Ward. The poorest people in New Orleans lived in the Ninth Ward, and it was the most dangerous place to live.

While claiming that climate change has no cost, House Republicans and the Trump administration seem to be arguing that they are the champions of the working class, decrying the critical EPA safeguards and their alleged impacts on working-class Americans and their access to healthcare.

It is amazing to look at maps of where trees exist. Many times in cities across this country, where the poorest people live there are no trees. And there is a direct relationship between asthma, the lack of oxygen, and trees.

So you don't have to pay attention to the science, but it is pretty clear.

I think it is outrageous that the opposition party has the nerve to pose as the defenders of working-class Americans because, actually, you have a pretty poor record of defending those who are the poorest, ranging from dropping food stamps, to the GOP tax scam selling out Medicare and Medicaid to pay for corporate tax breaks, to Republican Governors deciding not to approve the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and now trying to get rid of people on insurance who have preexisting conditions, to failing to quickly provide funding resources and the necessary leadership to help the victims of last fall's hurricanes.

The evidence is all out there if anybody cares to look. But to hear you tell the story, the only way to protect the health of America's workers and their children is to weaken longstanding public health protections.

To say we should allow polluters to pollute more? That is nonsense. More air and water pollution won't make our Nation's citizens any healthier. More toxic pollution certainly isn't the answer. And the answer certainly isn't pretending that climate change won't have real costs to all Americans.

I was interested to hear tonight some of our colleagues from New Mexico telling about how very, very dry New Mexico is, with one of the shortest snowfalls in history.

So it is time to stop denying the science and accept reality: Climate change is occurring, it is caused by humans, and it is already causing serious damage.

We are at the beginning of a new hurricane season, and now is not the time to pretend that extreme weather events, rising seas, and more frequent storms do not have a cost.

Before the Trump administration abandoned common sense, the social cost of carbon was a very conservative calculation. The full costs of a rapidly changing climate are almost certainly significantly higher, but the social cost of carbon is a much, much better estimate than assuming the costs are zero.

Unfortunately, that is what this amendment would require the government to assume: zero harm and zero cost from carbon pollution and climate change.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Pretending climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. It is very simple. It would expand the House Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program so that more wounded servicemembers have the opportunity to continue serving our country by working in congressional offices.

We need more veterans in public service. They bring unique perspectives and experiences, unlike any other. The veterans that I have been fortunate enough to hire in my office have given me invaluable support and allowed me to consider issues that are important to veterans in an important and much more enlightened fashion. Their voices are important in this body, more now than ever.

By investing in the Wounded Warrior Fellowship Program, more veterans will get a chance to serve. Expanding this program will enhance the professional development opportunities for those fellows.

We in Congress do talk a lot about ways to help veterans transition following their service in the military. This is an opportunity for us to actually do something about that and model what we think all employers ought to be doing.

It is a simple way to expand opportunities for veterans. It increases the number of veterans in public service. Again, in my office, I have benefited greatly from the veterans that I have hired. It is a bipartisan effort to continue to expand this program.

I ask my colleagues to pass this amendment. It is a small way to not only improve the function of our own offices but also say thanks to the brave men and women who have given so much for the freedom that we all enjoy.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to highlight the lack of urgency by the Air Force to address an ongoing drinking water emergency across the country, including one in my home district. I am not talking about Flint; I am talking about Oscoda, Michigan, at the northern end of my district, the home of the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base.

My constituents living there have had their drinking water contaminated by PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, from the Air Force's use of firefighting foam. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to harmful health issues like cancer as well as thyroid, kidney, liver, heart, and reproductive problems. It is not just servicemembers but community members there.

Unfortunately, the more we learn about this dangerous class of chemicals, the more we are finding it in drinking water across the country. In my district alone, thousands of people have cancer-causing chemicals in their drinking water due to the Air Force's use of this material.

The Air Force does not seem to want to recognize this ongoing drinking water crisis. I have been pushing the Air Force to clean up the contamination in Oscoda and other communities. In fact, the entire Michigan delegation, Democrats and Republicans, wrote to appropriators asking for more funding for PFAS contamination.

While Members are prevented from earmarking legislation to send resources directly to clean up contamination in Oscoda, it is an urgent problem that I wanted to call attention to. This community is near this former Air Force Base. It is facing very serious water contamination issues.

You would think that the Air Force would request additional resources to clean up contamination, but, frustratingly, the Air Force has so far refused to request additional resources.

The Appropriations Committee even asked the Air Force if they needed more money. Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee even asked the Air Force if they needed more money to address this problem, but the Air Force responded that they did not need any additional funds.

I offer this amendment for the purpose of raising the issue. I know that it is not possible for us to designate these funds, so it is my intention to withdraw this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for her commitment to work on this.

This is a serious issue. I know Congress takes it seriously. I just would ask that the Air Force take it equally as seriously and request the funds necessary to clean up this really difficult problem.

With that, I know that this amendment could present some problems in terms of the way this legislation moved forward, but the commitment that I have that this will be getting the attention it deserves from Congress, I think, is important.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide just over $2 billion to the vocational rehabilitation and employment account. This account invests in programs to help veterans successfully transition to civilian life.

Our country has been at war for nearly two decades. While these conflicts are still ongoing, the number of veterans in this country is going to continue to grow. We have to invest in programs that support this generation of veterans as they seek to reintegrate into the civilian workforce.

I just want to highlight a couple of important programs in this account.

The Special Employer Incentives program connects veterans with opportunities where the VA reimburses the employer for up to half of a veteran's salary. This is a program that matches veterans with apprenticeships, with the expectation of being hired upon completion.

I know from experience that our veterans bring unique perspective and skills to the workplace. I have hired, as I have said in previous conversations, multiple veterans working in my office, including a Wounded Warrior fellow and a HillVets fellow. We should ensure that we are supporting programs that connect veterans with employers.

My amendment would also ensure funding for the VA to expand its Veterans Economic Communities Initiative, a program in which nonprofits and educational institutions build supportive networks for veterans. This is exactly the kind of long-term support that we should have had in place years

ago before launching into these conflicts.

For many Americans, the American Dream is owning your own business and being your own boss. The vocational rehabilitation and employment account includes programs that help veterans do just that.

The vocational rehabilitation and employment account also includes the VetSuccess on Campus program, which places vocational rehab counselors in partner schools.

This amendment would give the VA the opportunity to expand these programs, reaching even more veterans.

Unfortunately, as this process has moved forward, we have come to understand that the VA would intend to reduce the account for direct support for tuition and other supplies for veterans under their rights under the GI Bill.

I will ask that this amendment be withdrawn, but I want to make sure to make the point that we ought to have a specific carveout for these vocational programs, for these transition programs. It is my hope that, as we move forward, we will be able to work with the VA to be able to identify a source that would not reduce the other benefits that are available to veterans seeking to better themselves.

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

Mr. Chair, I withdraw this amendment.