Recognizing the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children and expressing support for the designation of April 2024 as the "Month of the Military Child".

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

The fiscal year 2024 Energy and Water bill ushers in new horizons for jobs and progress for our region and Nation. Our bill assures investments in modernized energy production, vital water infrastructure, and nuclear national security, all essential for American independence inside our borders.

This bipartisan Energy and Water bill funds the U.S. Department of Energy, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and regional commissions and authorities impacting every corner of our Nation. This includes the Appalachian, Delta, Denali, Northern Border, Southeast Crescent, Southwest Border, and the Great Lakes.

U.S. energy independence in perpetuity is our consistent, paramount, strategic goal, and each year our Nation makes significant progress toward it.

This bill also assures that our Nation's nuclear security assets, including the nuclear Navy, are modern and ready, both as a deterrent and to safeguard our national security. With Vladimir Putin's recent reckless threats about launching nuclear weapons in Europe and former President Donald Trump's appeasing reaction, this bill is needed as an affirmation of American will to protect and defend our people and assure our Nation's security posture against all enemies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill. I thank our able chair, Charles Fleischmann, for his dutiful and responsible service to our Nation.

I include in the Record this Proposal for the 2024 Energy and Water bill.

Proposal: A Great Lakes Authority

For the consideration of: Joseph R. Biden, Jr. President,

United States of America.

From: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Co-Chair, Great Lakes Task

Force; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Co-Chair, Great Lakes

Task Force; Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), Chair, Environment and

Climate Change Subcommittee; Rep. Bobby Bush (D-IL), Chair,

Energy Subcommittee; Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), Co-Chair,

House Manufacturing Task Force

1. Summary

The eight states that comprise the U.S. portion of the

Great Lakes watershed contain the core of America's

commercial and defense industrial base.

The Department of Homeland Security defines these

industries as ``America's Critical Manufacturing Sector''.

Failure or disruption within these industries would result in

cascading disruptions in other critical sectors of the

economy, in multiple regions, and have significant national

economic impact.

This existing industrial base contains the nation's largest

pool of skilled and experienced production workers. The

Region has an almost inexhaustible supply of fresh water.

These 8 States do 25 percent of all U.S. trade with Canada,

which is this nation's largest export market. In 2020, Canada

imported more than $255 billion of U.S. goods and services.

This base provides a solid foundation for creating a unique

21st Century regional development strategy--one that can

enable the United States to (1) build back its manufacturing

base, (2) create millions of new and better jobs within the

Region, and (3) restore an assured, U.S. defense industrial

sector and a resilient energy platform sufficient to power

U.S.-based production.

Franklin D. Roosevelt created the model for such a strategy

in 1933 with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--a unique

institution brought into being to control the raging waters

of the 3 Tennessee River, provide low-cost electricity, and

advance the economic development of the under-invested seven

states in that Basin.

Our times require a 21st Century version of such an

Authority in the Great Lakes Region--one that can protect and

wisely use the fresh waters of the Great Lakes, build back

better the Region's economy and be a necessary exemplar for

climate change remediation.

The GLA's mission would be to:

Restore and protect America's principal source of fresh

water.

Foster innovation, commercialize it, and by that create

more and better jobs.

Strengthen and expand the core U.S. manufacturing and

defense industrial jobs base, and the required energy systems

to sustain/power production.

Create world-class worker education, training and

adjustment institutions.

Work with the Government and Provinces of Canada on our

mutual Great Lakes challenges including the Great Lakes-Saint

Lawrence Seaway Corporation.

The Chair of the Great Lakes Authority would be a Cabinet

level official appointed by the President and confirmed by

the U.S. Senate. The Chair would represent the U.S.

Government. A five person board lead by the Chair would be

joined by four bipartisan board members appointed by the U.S.

House and Senate leadership.

The GLA would be governed by a five-person, bipartisan

Board, each of whom serves for a five-year term. The Chair

would be a Cabinet level official appointed by the President,

confirmed by the U.S. Senate and be a full-time position. The

other four members of the Board would be appointed by the

Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. House of

Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Each would be confirmed

by the U.S. Senate. Eligible appointees would be limited to

residents of the Region who are currently active as a

corporate manufacturing CEO, head of a major financial

institution, President of a Land Grant University, or CEO of

a major distribution company. These four positions would be

part-time and compensated as is normal with private

corporations.

The Great Lakes Authority would be funded by the same ways

and means as was, and is now, the Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA) and include both federally appropriated funds and

revenues generated by GLA projects, with the same annual

financing similar to that of the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Great Lakes Authority would be authorized and funded

to:

Create and administer a regional infrastructure bank that

could finance domestic civil works that have a dedicated

revenue stream such as water and wastewater systems,

Create and finance other domestic civil works from

appropriated funds,

Create and operate a business development fund to assist in

the establishment and expansion of regional-based

manufacturers,

Create university-based research, development, and

technical consortiums,

Create the 18th National Laboratory, with satellites as

necessary in GLA states, and dedicate it to advancing applied

science, the manufacturing arts, and the commercialization of

advanced technology products,

Create a patent hub that will aggressively invest and

develop new clean energy inventions, technologies and

industries, and

Create and fund world-class remedial, transition and

advanced education and training institutions and programs

that invest in the workers of the Region.

The United States has long dealt with regional challenges

with regional solutions. The TVA is an example. The purpose

of this proposal is to outline why a Great Lakes Authority is

needed and identify how it can make a major contribution to

building back better this vital region of the United States.

Today, alone of the U.S.'s major economic regions, the

Great Lakes states do not have such a vital development

institution.

2. The Challenge

Manufacturing and Job Losses:

The United States has closed 91,000 factories and lost 5

million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was enacted in 1993

and China joined the World Trade Organization in 2000. The 8-

state Great Lakes Region lost 1.5 millions of those jobs--

that is, 30 percent. Many of the Region's people were unable

to adapt and have responded with addiction, suicide,

conspiracy fantasies, and political radicalization

Weakened Finances:

These losses of factories and jobs, in turn, have greatly

weakened the fiscal capacity of the Region's state and local

governments. A measure of this fiscal crisis is found in the

high municipal indebtedness of the Region's cities. Detroit

and Cleveland each have a municipal bonded indebtedness of

more than two billion dollars. Toledo owes $1.6 billion and

Milwaukee almost $1.4 billion. Faced with the high costs of

operation, repairs, rehabilitation and replacement, coupled

with unavoidable federal mandates that come with only 50

percent funding, these municipalities are forced to increase

utility rates on customers who are already in economic

trouble.

The On-Going Great Lakes Ecological Catastrophe:

The Region's five Great Lakes--Erie, Huron, Michigan,

Ontario, and Superior--are the source of 21 percent of the

world's surface freshwater and 84 percent of North America's.

These Lakes undergird life, work and recreation for tens of

millions of people. Yet, before our eyes they are succumbing

to an ecological disaster of epic proportions.

Dan Egan in The Death and Life of the Great Lakes writes:

The Great Lakes are now home to 186 non-native species. None

has been more devastating than the Junior Mint-sized zebra

and quagga mussels . . . leaving trillions upon trillions of

filter-feeding quagga mussels sucking the life out of the

lake itself . . . native fish populations have been

decimated. Bird-killing botulism outbreaks plague lakeshores.

Poisonous algae slick capable of shutting down public water

supplies have become a routine summertime threat. A virus

that causes deadly hemorrhaging in dozens of species of fish,

dubbed by some scientists the ``fish Ebola'' has become

endemic in the lakes and threatens to spread across the

continent. Yet, invasive species are only one of many threats

to what in fact is the largest inland sea in the world.

Researchers at the Universities of Wisconsin and Michigan

have created a ``threat map'' that analyzes 34 distinct

threats that affect these five lakes. The composite stresses

include not only invasive species but also toxic algae,

erosion, development, waste plastics and toxic pollutants

among other sources.

Cumulative Stress in the Great Lakes Today:

The state and local governments of the region are

themselves so economically strapped that they are fiscally

incapable of making the remediations that the Lakes require.

Major fiscal help and institutional leadership from the

Federal Government is essential if this ecological

catastrophe is to be stopped and then reversed. Innovation--

Regarding innovation in the Great Lakes region, a telling

measure of the region's innovation decline is found by

comparing whether these eight states have kept pace with the

rest of the United States in devising inventions that are

sufficiently new, non-obvious and useful that inventors and

companies file and receive a patent from the United States

Patent Office (USPTO).

The Great Lakes states have not kept pace with innovation.

Specifically, in 1990, 51,000 U.S. patents were issued and in

2020 the USPTO granted 188,000--an increase of 265 percent. 8

In 2020, California residents were granted 571 percent more

patents than they were in 1990. Oregon residents got 553

percent more. Washington State residents were awarded a

whopping 901 percent more. Not a single Great Lake State even

reached the national average by 2020. All fell behind the

pace of U.S. invention.

The Nuclear Power Issue:

Heavy power demands across the region require a dependable

baseload energy supply with a highly skilled workforce.

Today, the Region has 17 nuclear reactors at 15 sites in

operation. Nuclear power provides 15 percent of the

electricity for Ohio and Wisconsin, 23 percent for Minnesota,

29 percent for Michigan, 33 percent for New York, 41 percent

for Pennsylvania, and 53 percent for Illinois. Competition

pressures from massive, new natural gas supplies have created

financial pressures that make nuclear power more expensive.

These zero net carbon nuclear plants have become financially

uncompetitive. Yet, thousands of companies and hundreds of

thousands of workers depend on this nuclear base load.

For the foreseeable future, nuclear energy must be a key

segment of electricity generation or neither economic

development nor climate change goals can be attained. Ways

are means are required to extend the operation of these

nuclear facilities and, working with all stakeholders,

increase electric production beyond what private enterprise

appears to be able to facilitate in a quickly changing and

uncertain market.

The Brookings Study:

A decade ago, the Great Recession and the collapse of the

U.S. auto industry highlighted the manufacturing decline in

the Region. Regional leaders engaged the Brookings Institute

to help identify a consensus among private-sector and public

stakeholders as to what to do to create the next economy. The

result was a report: ``The Next Economy: Economic Recovery

and Transformation in the Great Lakes Region.''

The report called for the federal, state, metropolitan

leaders to join with the private and philanthropic sectors

to:

Invest in the assets that matter--innovation,

infrastructure and human capital,

Devise new public-private institutions that are market-

oriented and performance-driven,

Reimagine metros' form and governance structures to set the

right conditions for economic growth.

The report was issued in September 2010. The unstated

expectation was that the report and leadership consensus

would guide the Obama Administration's second round of

recovery actions post-2010. It never happened. In November

2010, control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

changed. What happened next is that the U.S. devolved into

ten years of national political gridlock. Neither the state,

nor local governments, nor the industries, nor the companies,

nor the people of the region could meet the magnitude of this

challenge alone. Nor could they form a joint regional

strategy because there was no regional institution through

which the leaders of the Region could define, advocate and

create such a truly regional strategy.

What the Great Lakes Region needed then, and needs even

more now, is a 21st Century Great Lakes Authority--an

institution that can help the Region innovate, create jobs

and confront the compounding environmental and climate

challenges. This proposed Great Lakes Authority can be that

Institution. By its structure, focus, coherence, funding and

leadership it can help the Region and nation envision,

implement and sustain an aggressive Great Lakes strategic

development agenda.

This proposed Authority can be an institutional anchor to

aid the Region to sustain a long-term effort through the

storms, calms and vagaries of national policy making.

A Great Lakes Authority:

The United States has always supported regional solutions

to regional development and regional challenges. The

principal of these efforts is managed by the Bureau of Land

Management, which traces its roots to 1812 and was formed, in

part, to serve arid parts of the nation with regional water

resources and power generation.

Then, in 1933 during the economic depression, FDR created

the 7-state TVA. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson created

the 13-state Appalachian Regional Commission. Their

successors have created regional commissions in other parts

of the U.S. These regional instrumentalities were created to

strengthen the economies of these Regions and help those

states achieve economic equality with the rest of the Nation.

Additional regional efforts have been proposed in other

states. Two of these Regional Commissions (Delta and Northern

Border) have been provided miniscule funding.

The Southeast Crescent Region and Southwest Border Regional

Commissions have not been activated. Strikingly, the Great

Lakes Region has neither a Regional Authority, such as TVA,

nor even a lesser-funded regional commission. Simply put,

building back better the Great Lakes Region is a challenge

that requires an empowered and well-financed Great Lakes

Authority.

Lessons from the TVA:

Now, almost nine decades after its founding, some lessons

from TVA's experiences provide clear guidance for this

proposed Great Lakes Authority.

1. Many environmental and economic problems are not bound

by state boundaries. Regional approaches are required to

solve regional challenges.

2. The development institutions and capacities of any

Region are so atomized as to be ineffectual when dealing with

broader issues of mutual concern. The 2010 Brookings report

highlighted that: ``The metropolitan areas of the Great Lakes

are ruled by a byzantine network of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school boards, fire districts, library

districts, workforce boards, industrial development

authorities, water and sewer districts and a host of other

entities.'' The Brookings scholars concluded that the

metropolitan areas of the Great Lakes need to begin speaking

with a unified voice on economic development and design and

implement a unified strategy. A Regional Authority can

facilitate such coherence.

3. The TVA has a 200-person unit devoted to the economic

development of the 7-state TVA region. It is far larger,

better funded and more effective than any of the 7 state

efforts in the Region. The TVA provides; (a) an international

capacity to identify and source private capital investment,

(b) secure domestic finance through state, municipal, banking

and venture funds, as well as (c) the guidance required to

select sites and coordinate infrastructure and agreements at

low, long-term interest rates. With these capacities, TVA has

created a powerful supplement to state and local efforts to

attract capital investment and jobs into the Tennessee

Valley. It works well. The Great Lakes basin would benefit

from this TVA approach.

Conclusion:

When conceiving the TVA, President Franklin D. Roosevelt

focused on equity. What FDR challenged was an inequality that

was out of control between capital and labor and also between

the regions of the United States, particularly the Southern

and Appalachian regions. FDR closed much of this inequality--

both between people and between regions. Since the early

1980s, the inequalities between the few and the many, the

coasts and the interior, and the developed and underdeveloped

regions of the U.S. have widened.

Now, it appears that a new era has opened with the

Administration of President Joseph Biden. The new balance

between economic efficiency and economic equity now appears

to be once again emphasizing a more equitable distribution of

economic growth and opportunities for both people and

regions. The Great Lakes region has been falling behind by

almost every measure and needs substantial attention to

reverse economic and

environmental challenges. A Great Lakes Authority is as vital

a development tool for the Biden-Harris Era of today as TVA

was for the Roosevelt Era of the 1930s.

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

We have had 15 minutes to review a 71-page document, a document that was filed before midnight last night. There hasn't been any time for staff to review a 71-page document on such an important issue that we are facing.

It demonstrates a lack of responsibility, and a lack of a willingness to have a bipartisan agreement on a continuing resolution. I rise in strong opposition to the bill.

The day before the government shuts down, the majority is still throwing anything that they can at the wall to see if anything sticks.

House Republicans have already proven that they cannot and they will not pass a continuing resolution on their own, even one with outlandish spending cuts that could never pass the Senate or be signed into law.

A bipartisan, bicameral solution is the only way forward. I worked on these efforts last December, and House Republicans at that time decided not to participate with the Senate Republicans. With Senator Shelby and Senator Leahy, we hammered out a budget for 2023.

The Speaker knows the bipartisan Senate continuing resolution would easily garner a majority in this House of Representatives. Yet, he refuses to let it go to the floor of the House.

What is he afraid of? What are we trying instead?

Yesterday, Republicans voted to defund our support for our allies in the Middle East, including a billion-dollar cut to Israel, with a further cut to Jordan. That did not work, so today, the target is Ukraine, despite the fact that it is the majority's will, demonstrated several times this week, to provide support for Ukraine's self-defense.

The Biggs amendment that would strike all Ukraine security assistance initiative funds from the defense bill failed, 104-330.

The Gaetz amendment that would have prohibited all funding for Ukraine in the defense bill failed, 93-339.

A Greene amendment to prohibit assistance to Ukraine in the State and foreign operations bill failed, 90-342.

This body voted to separately fund Ukraine after it was stripped from the defense bill in the darkness of night, and that was 311-117.

Mr. Speaker, the appeasement strategy of the far right does not have majority support in this body. Standing with our allies does have support here, which is tried-and-true American patriotism, American justice, American views, and their values for freedom and the fight for democracy.

That is who we are. That is what we are about. Those who would do otherwise, it is shameful, shameful in bringing down the United States of America and its support for those people who seek freedom in our world today.

Department of Defense officials recently sent letters to the four corners of the Congress. Under Secretary McCord writes: ``Without additional funding now, we would have to delay or curtail assistance to meet Ukraine's urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as Russia prepares to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of Ukrainian cities.''

Then he continues: ``Delays to additional funding would also be perceived by Ukraine as a sign of wavering U.S. support and likely as a betrayal of our previous commitments. Allies and partners are also unlikely to sustain their increased level of support without clear, continuing U.S. leadership. As you know, Secretary Austin successfully engages over 50 nations every month to press for sustained support. It is crucial that the U.S. continues to lead this global coalition--`` the United States should lead--``and we need the resources to underwrite our leadership role.''

House Republicans have shown that they are unwilling and they are unable to govern. Some have shown they are willing and they are able to abandon our allies.

It is time for this body, for my Republican colleagues, to abandon the Gaetz strategy or the Greene strategy and try, as we have in the past, for a bipartisan strategy that we all know will ultimately conclude the shutdown and fully fund the United States government.

A shutdown will hurt families and farmers, children and servicemembers at a time when families are living paycheck to paycheck.

Let us keep the U.S. Government open. Let us proceed with a bipartisan, bicameral agreement as has been proposed by the United States Senate and let us continue to support Ukraine's fight for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, let's get to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), for the purpose of a colloquy.

Yes, I do. I strongly support the Senate version.

I just say to you that maybe you have had the chance to read 71 pages. This bill doesn't extend the authority to help Ukrainian refugees.

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

I find it very strange, indeed, that there is no mention of several things, at least preliminarily which we have looked at in this bill.

There are many changes between this bill, as the gentleman asked me, and the Senate bill. There are many changes.

The gentleman from New York should understand that there are many changes between this bill and the Senate bill.

Here is one that I believe the majority will not mention. They amended the Senate bill to give themselves a pay raise--a pay raise. It is there.

Yeah. You can look at me, you can smile, but what you did was you amended the Senate bill to give yourselves a pay raise while you have threatened day in and day out servicemembers; you have threatened workers across this country, and you have said to them, we don't really care about you and whether or not you can support your family. We don't care about that. No. We mainly care about ourselves and our pay raise.

It is pretty true to form with what the American people think about Members, but they should know which Members are willing to give them up in their own self-interest for a pay raise.

It is despicable. You are about to shut the government down, but hours before you do so, you give yourself a pay raise. It is pathetic.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to read a letter that was sent by the Under Secretary of Defense, Michael McCord.

The letter was sent to the Speaker of the House as well as to the Senate majority and minority leaders. It is addressed to Leader Jeffries.

``I write to express the Department of Defense's deep concern with the absence of security assistance funding for Ukraine in the continuing resolution being considered in the House . . . or any similar continuing resolution that might be proposed. The Department of Defense is anxious to avoid a lapse in appropriations, but it is important that a CR protect our security interests and uphold our commitments and our values.

``As you know, the Department has been providing vital security assistance to Ukraine since Russia's unprovoked invasion in February 2022, thanks to the bipartisan support of Congress. It is just as vital today that we continue that support.

``Today, DOD has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for Ukraine. We are already out of funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, one of the two security assistance tools we have.

``The other funding tool we need are those funds provided to replenish our military's inventories for the weapons and supplies we've provided to support Ukraine in their fight via drawdown. We have only $1.6 billion remaining of the $25.9 billion Congress has provided.

We have already been forced to slow down the replenishment of our own forces to hedge against an uncertain funding future--'' our own forces. ``Failure to replenish our military services on a timely basis could harm our military's readiness.

``Without additional funding now, we would have to delay our curtail assistance to meet Ukraine's urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as Russia prepares to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. For example, a lack of USAI funding now will delay contracting actions that could negatively impact the Department's ability to purchase essential additional 155-millimeter artillery and critical munitions essential for the success of Ukraine's Armed Forces.

``This ammunition is critical to sustaining Ukraine's Armed Forces, including for their ongoing counteroffensive. An inability to ensure timely procurement and deliveries could undermine essential Ukrainian operations to retake additional territory or defend against potential future Russian offensives.

``It would also affect our ability to support Ukraine's land forces, including obstacle breaching equipment, sustainment of previously provided small Unmanned Aerial Systems, systems to detect, analyze, and locate adversary signals, and demolitions equipment. It would affect training, maintenance, and sustainment of the equipment we have previously provided, exportability efforts, spare parts, and other activities to ensure the Ukrainian Armed Forces receive a full capability.

``A funding cutoff would also send a negative signal to our defense industrial base, which we have asked to step up munitions production across the country, resulting in increased defense capacity and higher employment.

We cannot afford to throw that progress away. In fact, we are counting on it to implement our national defense strategy. It is important to note that from workers supporting Stinger and AMRAAM manufacturing in Arizona to factories producing components for Patriot interceptors and GMLRS in Arkansas, this funding is strengthening the American economy and creating hundreds of new American jobs.

``Some have suggested that the Department could still execute the mission and support Ukraine's needs if it were given permission to transfer funds from inside a short-term CR from our own needs to fund more security assistance. To be clear, the Department does not support that approach, which will create an unacceptable risk to us. Under a CR, the Department will be operating at a level approximately $25 billion below our budget request for FY 2024, which was and is consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act funding levels.

``The bottom line is we cannot sustain adequate levels of Ukraine assistance with transfer authority alone.

``Delays to additional funding would also be perceived by Ukraine as a sign of wavering U.S. support and likely as a betrayal of our previous commitments. Allies and partners are also unlikely to sustain their increased level of support without clear, continuing U.S. leadership. As you know, Secretary Austin successfully engages over 50 nations every month to press for sustained support. It is crucial that the U.S. continues to lead this global coalition, and we need the resources to underwrite our leadership role.

``The Department appreciates your leadership on this vital matter, and I am sending an identical letter to the Speaker of the House, as well as the Senate majority and minority leaders.''

Michael McCord, the Under Secretary for Defense.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would make reference to page 7 of the 71- page document. In the Senate bill, I might add, they include a line that says the Senate bill includes the blocking or the prohibition on a Member pay raise. That has been dropped from the bill that has just been proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that I must rise in opposition

to the measure before us. I am anguished over it for one simple reason: Veterans' lives are on the line.

I have the greatest respect for my colleague, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I know it was a difficult road to get to this point. I also appreciate the work of our Democratic leader to try and find consensus. There are many good things in this bill, things that will benefit everyday Americans, but as ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, this bill comes at the expense of our most vulnerable veterans and, therefore, I cannot support it.

However, I will be clear that I am not asking my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from the State of Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to shine a light on an ugly truth buried deep in section 413 of this bill. What is this section all about?

When a veteran applies for benefits they have earned, they are screened to make sure that they are competent to use those benefits to not take advantage of. If a veteran is determined to be mentally incompetent, they are appointed a fiduciary, and by law, they are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the NICS list.

A determination of mental competency is typically based on very serious mental health conditions like schizophrenia and dementia, and there are various serious reasons why a person with those conditions should not be able to purchase a firearm.

It is also the case that firearms are used in 68 percent of veterans' death by suicide. Suicide is a serious problem among veterans, and since I have had the honor to be on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have fought to prevent the scourge of veteran suicide.

So why on Earth would this Congress cede one more important safeguard against a veteran's death? I personally cannot, and that is why I cannot support this bill.

Republicans have pushed this type of provision for over a decade. I know because I have fought every year against this provision. They have done so with misinformation and fearmongering. Democrats have successfully fought this legislation in committee, which is why Republicans did not have the courage to bring this to the floor in the light of day and to have this body consider it through the normal process through regular order.

Instead, they crammed it into this must-pass bill, enacting policy through the back door of a spending bill. They have abandoned all of their other so-called priorities because they wanted this so badly. They wanted so badly to make sure that vulnerable veterans could access more firearms.

This is wrong. Lives are on the line. Veterans' lives are on the line, and I will not agree to legislation that will cause more people's lives to be lost to gun violence.

House Democrats have been working to put people over politics, but it is clear that the Republican majority is content to put politics over veterans, including prioritizing politics over veterans' lives.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4366 and a statement from the Giffords organization, which both speak to the harm of this provision.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4366--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024--Rep. Granger, R-TX)

The Administration strongly urges swift passage of H.R.

4366, making appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for

other purposes. This bipartisan legislation represents a

compromise and neither side got everything it wanted, but it

would prevent a damaging shutdown of several key agencies,

protect key priorities and make progress for the American

people.

H.R. 4366 includes important investments that advance a

range of key national priorities, building on the progress

that has been made over the past three years both in annual

appropriations and through legislation like the Inflation

Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The bill

fully funds the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children, protecting essential benefits

for millions of women and children across the Nation. The

bill also maintains rental assistance for millions of

families. and expands assistance to an additional 3,000

households. The bill also sustains critical infrastructure

programs, maintains pay raises for Federal wildland fire

fighters, and fully funds veterans' medical care. In

addition, the bill also increases funding for rural housing

assistance, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Violence

Against Women Act, and science investments at the Department

of Energy.

The Administration applauds the inclusion of other key

priorities, including the Compacts of Free Association, which

represents the bedrock of America's broader strategic

interests and engagements in the Indo-Pacific. The

Administration also appreciates the extension of several

vital health care programs, including the Special Diabetes

Program, as well as a seven-year extension of the

Undetectable Firearms Act.

While the Administration is pleased that hundreds of poison

pill provisions and extreme funding cuts were rejected, the

Administration opposes the language included in the bill that

would potentially undermine the ability of the Veterans'

Affairs Department to report a beneficiary to the National

Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep guns out of

the hands of those prohibited under Federal law from

purchasing or possessing firearms. The Administration remains

committed to exploring every possible pathway to keep guns

out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them and ensure

the safety of these individuals and their communities.

The Administration urges the Congress to send this critical

legislation to the President's desk for signature without

delay and to quickly act on the remaining funding bills as

well as the bipartisan national security supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I will not rest until this rider is gone from any future appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.

For now I must oppose this bill. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I don't ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. I have a great deal of respect for my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the significant amount of work that went into this, but I must follow my conscience because of my responsibilities to veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

I sadly must oppose the bill, but I do not urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 2024 Consolidated Appropriation Act and the inclusion of language from the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act. As a Member of Congress who has lived my personal as well as my civic life among the peoples and leaders of the Pacific Island nations and territories, I want first to recognize here the inclusive leadership of Speaker Johnson, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Westerman, and House Foreign Affairs Chairman McClure. Each of these leaders in our current House Majority reached out for my insights and perspectives as a House member who comes from the Pacific, regarding this legislation approving renewal of the Compact of Free Association.

I also join all stakeholders in the future success of America's relations with the U.S. aligned nations of the Pacific, as well as our American territories, in expressing deep gratitude for the bipartisan and bicameral coordination and cooperation in Congress on COFA renewal from 2020 to 2024. As House and Senate committee members we provided necessary policy guidance to the President, National Security Council, State Department, and Interior Department, making clear Congressional interests and expectations that would need to be addressed before statutory ratification by both Houses of terms included in COFA renewal agreements.

This bipartisan cooperation included the support of House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Grijalva and House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Meeks. Both colleagues cosponsored H.J. Res. 96 with Chairman Westerman and Chairman McClure. Thereby endorsing the original COFA renewal bill that has been inserted in the bill we approve today, which was developed through the bicameral and bipartisan cooperation with the leadership and staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in conjunction with House and Senate hearings on COFA renewal.

Of equal importance, all stakeholders in the COFA success story should recognize the national leaders and peoples of our COFA partner nations for strong commitment to the future success of the COFA alliance. Our closest allies in the Pacific acted with wisdom and patience during delays in the COFA renewal process due to initial U.S. negotiating positions that were not feasible in the COFA nations or in Congress. When ill-advised U.S. positions resulted in failure to conclude negotiations and approve COFA III before COFA II expired, the island government heads of state, ministers and chief negotiators worked with U.S. negotiators and Congress to sustain the COFA II framework until the job approving COFA III was done.

The Special Presidential Envoy appointed on the bipartisan and bicameral recommendation from many of us in Congress managed to salvage the COFA negotiations. Ambassador Yun overcame resistance in some dark corners of the Executive Branch bureaucracy sufficiently for the COFA nations to accept and for Congress to approve the package we are ratifying today.

The PRC communist dictatorship used its presence in the COFA nations to exploit the delay in COFA approval, attempting to influence elections, disrupt political and economic processes, and spread corruption. The dedication of these nations to the COFA alliance prevailed, and renewal of our 75-year relationship represents the success of self-determination and self-government over PRC political warfare and imperialism. That makes what we do today a success for democracy and freedom as well as the strategic national security capabilities COFA provides so the U.S. can continue to lead and defend a free and open Indo-Pacific.

The lesson of history in the Pacific is that funding our Compact of Free Association with the U.S. aligned Pacific Island nations of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands could make a difference between peace and war in the Pacific. The COFA alliances secure vital U.S. national security interests and redeem promises of friendship between America as a pacific nation and the peoples of these strategically located islands first forged in the tragedy and misery of

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5860) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5860, a bill that keeps the government open until November 17.

While I would rather be here speaking on the floor about final appropriations bills, I want Members to understand why passing a short- term funding bill today is so important.

First, I want to explain how we find ourselves in this situation. Just 9 months ago, when Republicans took back the majority in the House, our commitment was to regular order for appropriations, no more omnibus measures released in the dead of night, no more Christmas Eve votes on thousands of pages of text that Members of Congress had not read.

Unfortunately, there were a few stumbling blocks as we sought to change the process. For example, the administration's budget request was more than a month late. It then took months for the President to come to the table on the debt ceiling negotiations. Even before the debt ceiling agreement spending framework was in place, the Appropriations Committee got to work. In fact, this year, we held more than 70 hearings, reviewed roughly 80,000 requests from Members, listened, and then acted.

We began markups in May, 5 months ago, and then made adjustments to reflect changes in the law that set spending caps for the year. The appropriations bills moved through the subcommittees and then the floor. Even though a few bills have more steps to take in the process, I am proud of the work we have done.

As of today, we have sent four appropriations bills to the Senate, totaling roughly 70 percent of funding needed for this year. The Senate has not sent us any bills yet. The House has now laid down a marker on what I believe are our highest priorities.

It should be crystal clear to the American people that House Republicans support what is in our national security. Most importantly, we are focused on our troops and our veterans as well as defending our homeland and our interests abroad. At the same time, the bill we have drafted demonstrates that we must stop government overreach and the out-of-control spending of the last few years.

These are the most conservative appropriations bills in history, and we simply need more time to get our important work done.

While a continuing resolution is not ideal, it prevents a harmful government shutdown, gives us more time to pass the appropriations bills on the floor of the House, and allows us to start negotiations on final, full-year bills with the Senate.

Yesterday, I voted for a different version of a short-term funding bill that included key border security measures. I strongly support these efforts and will continue to fight for them as this process moves along.

Today, the most important priority is keeping government open while we work on full-year appropriations bills that reflect conservative priorities.

Passing this bill is the best way for us to move the process forward. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquiare as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).