Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8580) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8282) to impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8580, the fiscal year 2025 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill.

While I unfortunately cannot support the bill on the floor today, I am grateful to Chairman Carter for the work that we have been able to accomplish together over the years on this subcommittee.

I know we both prioritize quality of life for our servicemembers and their families and caring for our veterans, but, sadly, the bill before us today is built on a framework that once again walks away from the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act agreement, which is law, which was the basis for the bills that we passed just a couple of months ago.

While the FY25 MILCON-VA bill doesn't face cuts nearly as dramatic as the other bills, veterans, servicemembers, and their families rely on programs throughout the Federal Government.

These funding levels only move us further from a bipartisan agreement on all of the funding bills that those who served our Nation rely on.

On the military construction side, this bill cuts funding for servicemembers and their families by $718 million, compared to last year's bill. This cut will slow crucial progress to modernize and improve DOD's infrastructure.

In fiscal year `24, we provided DOD with $30 million in dedicated funding for resiliency, a comparatively small sum of funding now, which will pay huge dividends in the future and ensure our national security in the face of our changing climate.

By eliminating the dedicated resilience funding this year, this bill will threaten future military readiness because we are not making sure we invest in hardening facilities to make sure that they can withstand the impact of natural disasters.

Cutting military construction now slows our historically bipartisan efforts to reduce the infrastructure backlog to strengthen our national security and to improve the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families.

Perhaps the most egregious part of the bill is all the partisan riders it includes. This bill is usually first up on the floor, like we are this fiscal year, because we have a bipartisan process.

Unfortunately, partisan culture war riders have distracted from our ability to accomplish that. We have riders that include preventing the VA from implementing its interim final file on abortion care, which is now final, by the way, to provide abortion services under limited circumstances, abortion counseling, and to ensure that veterans have equal access to healthcare regardless of what State they live in, especially in a time when reproductive rights are under attack around the country.

A woman's decision whether or not to have an abortion should be made between her and her doctor and her family. It should not be made by politicians in this Chamber.

This bill includes riders that do everything from prohibiting VA from implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as well as training, to a petty, bigoted prohibition from flying the Pride flag over VA facilities during Pride Month, to add insult to injury, from protecting people who speak or act under the guise of religious freedom, essentially authorizing the arbitrary discrimination against LGBTQI+ people and to prohibiting access to gender-affirming care, just to name a few, all aimed to disenfranchise veterans from the VA.

Let me just note: The United States did not make exceptions to the promises that we made our servicemembers in exchange for their service and sacrifice. We made promises to everyone.

This bill undermines VA's ability to report a beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system to keep guns out of the hands of people who are prohibited under Federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is prohibiting VA from following the law that is intended to protect veterans and those around them.

We have a dramatic suicide problem among our veteran population, and allowing people who are prohibited by law to possess a gun makes that suicide more likely, not less, and puts other people around them in their care circle at risk. That is unacceptable, irresponsible, and unnecessary.

This bill prioritizes guns over protecting veterans. It is truly a shame that this bill includes these poison pill riders.

They create division between us when we all should have a shared goal of providing healthcare and benefits to our veterans.

These culture war riders were rejected in conference negotiations last year, and we know that they will be rejected again this year in order to reach a final agreement. This bill can't pass with all of these poison pill riders attached to it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the current distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture-Rural Development Subcommittee and the former ranking member of the MILCON-VA Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio), a veteran of our Armed Forces.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who goes to bat for our Nation's veterans every single day on the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, it is with a heavy heart that we--unnecessarily--oppose this legislation on our side of the aisle because this bill was drafted in a way that it never should have been and doesn't have to be.

The stark reality, by any definition, is that this bill cuts military construction by $718 million from last fiscal year to this one, and it cuts funding for our veterans by $6 billion from last year to this one.

There is no way around that. That is actually what we are doing. That is the math.

It is also pretty unprecedented. We generally increase funding in this bill. That is why it is so bipartisan. It is why our committee goes first, because we have a bill that, as Judge Carter said, we are really able to work very closely together on the nuts and bolts of taking care of our veterans and our servicemembers.

Unfortunately, because the Republicans refused to adhere to the law-- that is, the Fiscal Responsibility Act--and refused to make sure that we, in that agreement, adhere to the agreement where we increased nondefense discretionary and defense discretionary by 1 percent, as a result, the allocations given to our committee were paltry. Republicans decided to make cuts to individuals who have signed up to defend our country, whom our committee is responsible for going to bat for improving our veterans' and servicemembers' quality of life, who are promised that protection no matter who they are, no matter whom they love, and no matter what gender they are.

It is wrong to cut funding for veterans and servicemembers, and it is also wrong to load this bill up with partisan political culture war riders that deny women access to reproductive healthcare.

Let's be clear. What the Republicans have done here is they are eliminating the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that no matter where a woman veteran lives in this country, she is able to access an abortion in conjunction with the recommendation of her medical provider in the cases of rape or incest and in the cases of the life and health of the mother.

What the Republicans do in this bill is that a woman veteran has to be dying in order to be able to get access to abortion care. That is wrong because no one who has signed up and who has served our country, committed to laying their life on the line in defense of our country, should have politicians, judges, or the government making the

most deeply difficult personal healthcare decisions for them.

That is what Republicans do in this bill.

In addition to eliminating our ability to ensure that we can have seamless communication and support for our veterans, they are eliminating the DEI programming.

We have a very large agency. It is an agency in which we need to make sure that it can run seamlessly, but they are discriminating against LGBTQ+ people, and they are loading up this bill with unrelated, controversial, and unnecessary amendments that are going to prevent us from being able to make sure this bill can become law.

In fact, all those poison pill culture war riders are not going to survive conference, just like they didn't last year. We are wasting time here when we should be devoted to making sure we care for our servicemembers and our veterans, which is what this committee has always committed to.

I am sad I cannot support this bill. It doesn't have to be this way. I have tremendous respect for my friend, Judge Carter. He is right. We do work very well together.

Mr. Chair, I also thank our incredible staff for the work that they have done. Both of our staffs have changed over a little bit, so we have some newbies managing this. We appreciate all the effort that they have put in.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. It contains a number of noncontroversial amendments from both sides of the aisle. I encourage its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I will be clear that the gentleman who is offering this amendment has been committed to driving the VA toward privatization. That is what this is really all about.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment because what his amendment would do is greatly expand the MISSION Act, which is designated access standards to all categories of care and would seek to greatly increase the privatization of the VA.

The MISSION Act was not envisioned to replace all care at all facilities within VA with private care. It was intended to supplement care at VA facilities, particularly, and specifically, when a veteran was too far away from a VA facility that could provide the service or when there was a prolonged period of time in which a veteran could get that service.

Let's be clear: Where we are now in terms of the care in the community and for veterans getting access to appointments, in many cases, all across the country is that it actually takes longer for a veteran to get an appointment when they try to get one in the community than it does to get one at the VA. The overwhelming majority of veterans, when they are surveyed, make very clear that they prefer their care at the VA.

Implementing this amendment could have far-reaching ramifications and would cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars a year based on past CBO scores for similar legislation. It is interesting given that the majority is cutting the funding at the VA by $6 billion in this bill, so how we would ever be able to pay for this proposal is incomprehensible to me. This amendment is a controversial authorizing issue which should be considered in the appropriate authorizing committee, which the sponsor of the amendment is chairman of that committee.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as I said, the gentleman from Illinois can put all the bows and ribbons and wrapping paper that he would like on what his amendment does, but it doesn't change the fact that it would move VA not only further toward privatization, but flies in the face of the original goal and the law that the MISSION Act is intended to implement, which is to ensure that veterans who are not able to get quick and timely access to care when they don't live close enough to a VA facility that can provide that care or when the length of time is unreasonable for them to get that care, that is not the case in the situation in which this amendment would apply.

Plus, this amendment would cost an extraordinary amount of money, millions and, likely, billions of dollars which has been previously scored by CBO, and this bill cuts the VA by $6 billion.

Again, the mathing on the other side of the aisle is really not working so well.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, not only is this amendment bad policy, but the underlying bill includes a prohibition on ensuring that people who have been prohibited by law from getting access to a gun because they have had a fiduciary appointed to take care of their finances, meaning that they have had a determination that they are not competent to manage their finances, this amendment would go even further and eliminate the exception in the underlying bill that says if a court has judicially determined that a veteran is incompetent and appoints a fiduciary, even in that case, this amendment says that a veteran would be able to keep their guns.

Under Federal law, when someone is deemed mentally incompetent by a judge, which is a similar ruling that would occur in this case, the gentleman offering this amendment would allow a veteran to keep their firearms, even if a court had decided that they were not competent to handle their finances.

That is unacceptable. This provision not only prevents the VA from following the law that is intended to protect veterans and those around them, but it prioritizes firearms over the safety of veterans.

The existing program has a full due process system, and veterans have access to an appeals process.

This is an example of generating controversy where there is none.

The process of applying for disability benefits is separate from the processes by which veterans receive VA healthcare. The Veterans Health Administration does not take away veterans' firearms, but this amendment by implying that VA bureaucrats are going to take guns away from veterans, the provision not only does nothing to increase access to care, it seeks to dissuade veterans from even seeking the healthcare they have earned in the first place.

This is about whether we are going to keep veterans and those around them safe.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the core of the Second Amendment right is self-defense. Assigning a fiduciary to handle financial benefits does not interfere with self-defense, but rather, it is seeking to protect and avoid injuries and deaths from suicide and accidents, which are rising when a veteran who is not competent to handle much of their own personal business and a court has determined that, we know there is a greater risk when they are handling a firearm.

We know that suicide is more likely. We know that killings take place, and this amendment would make that more likely.

Madam Chair, I underscore my strong opposition to this amendment and urge Members to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would completely eliminate funding in this bill for the NATO Security Investment Program during a time when we should be investing in much-needed infrastructure projects.

I point out to my colleagues that worldwide in U.S. military infrastructure, 30 percent of our military infrastructure is in fair or poor condition. We should be investing in these much-needed infrastructure projects. Cutting funding for the NATO Security Investment Program is not only bad policy from a national security perspective, but it is also not sound long-term fiscal policy.

The deterrence that NATO provides now is a small cost to avoid future conflict. As I stated last year during debate on this issue, regardless of your stance on overall defense spending levels of various NATO countries, it is simply not true that the United States is paying more than its share of this direct contribution program.

This amendment does not recognize the cost-effective benefit the NATO Security Investment Program provides to the United States. The U.S. contributes less than 16 percent of the funding for the NATO Security Investment Program, but 44 percent of the locations for which projects are selected benefit U.S. posture locations.

If the U.S. contributed at the same cost share relative to national wealth that our allies do, our cost share would be 47 percent, rather than the under 16 percent that we actually pay.

The United States' contributions to NATO represent only a small portion of our defense spending, but the strength of the NATO alliance is an outsized and irreplaceable part of American national security. This amendment would not even reinvest the funding into other priorities. It simply cuts $434 million.

As I stated in my opening statement, this bill is already a cut of $718 million for military construction compared to the enacted level from last year. This amendment would take the bill further in the wrong direction and, if enacted, would leave military construction funded over a billion dollars less than in fiscal year 2024.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I think the sponsor of the amendment has shown pretty clear evidence that she has no idea what the NATO Security Investment Program is actually funding.

We are talking about funding that is provided to build infrastructure that takes care of our troops who are overseas so that we can make sure that we invest properly in infrastructure for a vast array of training facilities, of national security facilities, of hangars that contain our airplanes, military aircraft that costs billions of dollars.

Everything about what the amendment does actually makes our own servicemembers, who are fighting overseas to defend our national security interests and to defend our country, less safe.

I am not sure if the sponsor of the amendment has traveled to see our military infrastructure around the world. I have.

Oftentimes, when we go as MILCON-VA Subcommittee, I have traveled with Judge Carter to see some of our infrastructure. The appalling conditions in which much of this infrastructure exists make it so that our servicemembers are less safe.

I have been in hangars in which the doors don't close because they are rusted, and the jury-rigging that our servicemembers have to do to close the doors of some hangars to protect our very expensive equipment that protects our national security interests would straighten my hair, and that is not easy, Madam Chair.

We have a responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure that we fund is in pristine, well-kept condition. What the sponsor of the amendment would do is decimate our ability to do that. That is irresponsible. It is unpatriotic.

We should not support this amendment. Members should vote against it.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. CBO has reviewed this amendment and has indicated that it would have significant budget authority and outlay effects in this year. Translate that into English. It means that it would cost a lot of money.

The bill already cuts $6 billion from the VA over the last fiscal year. Furthermore, veterans can still receive their travel reimbursements online, which simplifies the current process and the need for hard-copy and in-person submissions, which is cumbersome and unnecessary.

I believe we should let the VA manage this process in a way that is efficient and cost-effective. This amendment micromanages the VA on something that is really not appropriate for us to be doing in this bill, and so I would urge its opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), my neighbor slightly to the north and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, as I said, I rise in opposition to this amendment, particularly because CBO says that the cost of actually implementing this would be astronomical, and the majority is already cutting $6 billion out of this bill, so I don't understand how they would expect VA to pay for what this proposal would require. We are micromanaging the VA when we should be allowing them to manage this process in a way that they think is most efficient and cost-effective. I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial. I do not oppose it. It supports community-based outpatient clinics and mobile medical units. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment is bewildering to me. I understand and agree with the frustration toward the deficiencies in housing for our servicemembers, including unaccompanied housing, but a GAO report last year highlighted the horrible conditions of some military unaccompanied housing and inadequate oversight from the military services.

While the services are taking some steps to address these deficiencies, our subcommittee has remained focused on a bipartisan basis of addressing this issue. Privatization of unaccompanied housing is not a universal answer to these problems, and it should not be a first option. While the services are exploring pilot projects for unaccompanied barracks, the feedback that our subcommittee has heard in hearings this year is that the services do not view privatization as an answer to this problem in all or even most cases.

We don't have to look far to see how privatization can go horribly wrong. Privatized family housing has resulted in persistent, unacceptable conditions for many military families, including houses with mold, improperly addressed lead paint, untimely maintenance, and companies which have not been responsive to their concerns.

Why? Because even the fines that are levied once these private companies are held accountable are just a rounding error for these multinational corporations who really don't have to worry about whether they can afford the accountability that is meted out from their neglect.

Oversight of privatized family housing remains a major issue to this day. Even when privatization may result in better housing conditions now, it is not a solution if companies don't properly maintain these facilities for the full life cycle like they have neglected to do for family housing.

Sure, if you have a private company build a private barracks now, it is pristine and new, and has nothing wrong with it, but with the neglect that is the track record of these private companies, down the road we are going to end up potentially in the same boat.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. There may be specific instances where privatized unaccompanied housing can be part of a holistic plan by the services to address the deficiencies of unaccompanied housing, but it is not and should not be the whole solution. That is where this amendment takes us.

We should not repeat the privatized housing horror stories of the past or waste untold millions more in critical taxpayer dollars on privatized housing schemes.

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

Madam Chair, the difference between the gentlewoman's approach and ours is that we believe that the services should continue to be able to take a measured approach to whether or not using privatized unaccompanied housing is appropriate and whether or not, as the gentlewoman's amendment would do, encourage the services to go to privatization for unaccompanied housing.

We see the track record that is unfettered. Going forward on privatizing housing has not gone well, and it has been expensive, costly, and it has also contributed to the problem that we are having with retention of our servicemembers.

We have heard testimony over the last few years from servicemembers who have been in neglected privatized family housing, and it has caused many of the servicemembers to throw the towel in and just say: You know what? I wanted to make a career out of being in the military, but obviously the services don't care about me and don't care about my family or exposing my children to lead paint, mold, and other really serious problems.

We are not at a point where we should be encouraging privatization of housing. We should allow the services to take a measured approach to pursue privatized unaccompanied housing when they think it is appropriate and make sure that there is appropriate accountability in place, which this amendment doesn't ensure.

I would urge Members to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will address the tail end of the previous colleague's comments that represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the way privatized military housing works.

The privatized companies aren't taking over housing that the government built. They actually enter into a contract with the military, and they build the housing brand new themselves.

The problem is that for decades, they have neglected it. They have neglected the housing. They are terrible about follow-up on maintenance and making sure that the housing is well cared for. They are leaving people in mold, filth, vermin, and lead paint, and it is unacceptable.

Let's just be clear that the gentleman's reference to privatized companies coming and rescuing government housing that has declined is not correct.

The privatized family housing program and the barracks are new construction that the privatized companies build, and then they neglect taking care of it and neglect taking care of our servicemembers, which is why we need to be careful about our approach in the future to privatized family housing and privatized housing for unaccompanied servicemembers.

This amendment is not controversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports medical care for veterans who reside in U.S. territories and Freely Associated States, which both Mr. Carter and I have gone together to see and to communicate about.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really would invite the gentlewoman from Virginia to take a tour of some of our privatized military family housing where she would have an opportunity to see that it is not better.

We have established some layer of oversight at the military service level, but we have really decrepit conditions that still exist.

There are some beginning improvements, but there are millions of dollars in fines that privatized military family housing companies have had to pay because of their neglect.

Like I said, encouraging more privatized housing for our unaccompanied servicemembers should be done in a selectful, choiceful way, not just encouraging it to occur across all of our services.

This amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports mental health care programs with an emphasis on suicide prevention.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It encourages the Navy and Marine Corps to effectively use its demolition funding. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the various harmful policy riders included in this bill.

Specifically, there are two sets of riders that I believe are the most poisonous. First, section 255 would prohibit the VA from implementing a rule on abortions, essentially making it the law that a woman veteran has to be dying in order to have access to an abortion. Never mind if an abortion is in the best medical interest of the veteran, this rider ignores that harsh but brutal reality that some veterans will face. It further limits women's access to reproductive care by prohibiting the VA from offering abortion counseling and making it more difficult for women veterans to access abortion services.

Many of our Republican colleagues are obsessed with adopting a national abortion ban, and their fanatic compulsion to control women's bodies will apparently spare no one, even if it means stealing away reproductive freedoms of the brave veterans who served to protect every last one of our freedoms.

This radical agenda is so out of sync with Americans' political mainstream, most self-described Republicans across

the country don't support it. It certainly should not be poisoning this historically bipartisan bill that our veterans and servicemembers desperately count on.

Further, sections 256, 257, and 416 are discriminatory riders against our LGBTQI+ community. The riders block gender-affirming care, limit the ability to fly the Pride flag at VA facilities, and create a license to discriminate against the LGBTQI+ community under the guise of religious freedom.

I was proud to sponsor amendments, joined by some of my Democratic colleagues, that would have stricken these provisions, but the majority blocked those amendments from receiving a vote.

Like the assaults on women's bodies, these extremist attacks undermine the basic tenets of equality and inclusivity at the very heart of our democratic values.

The VA should be welcoming and inclusive for everyone who volunteers to sacrifice and serve our Nation, not just some of them.

I single out these two particularly odious sets of riders, because unlike many of the genuine policy differences that we will have today, these are both especially cruel, discriminatory, and destined to shrivel under the unforgiving light of time and history.

We should all be uniting to ensure that veterans can find jobs, feed their families, keep roofs over their heads, and get the care they deserve, not dividing and politicizing their personal and medical decisions.

For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike the harmful provisions I just described for you.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8580

to the Committee on Appropriations with the following

amendment:

Strike sections 255, 256, 257, and 416.

Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Mast

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It assists veterans with disabilities and mental health and substance abuse challenges. We support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports the VA home loan program, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment is noncontroversial, and I am not opposed to it. It supports funding for medical services for the treatment of PTSD, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to

this amendment because this is yet another attempt at trying to privatize veterans' healthcare.

Veterans have consistently made it clear that they prefer to get their healthcare at the VA. That is where they are the most comfortable. That is where they are served by people who have served in the military, as well. It is a culture and an environment that ensures that veterans are seen and treated by people who understand what they have been through.

Multiple studies, in fact, have shown that non-VA care generally is of lower quality and higher cost. In fact, since the enactment of the MISSION Act, which was designed to shift patients from the Veterans Health Administration to the private sector, costs have exploded. Between fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2024, costs for medical community care have grown by over $21 billion, or almost 140 percent.

My colleagues across the aisle often lament that government spending is out of control. I agree that we shouldn't balance our budget on the backs of our veterans, but we can take reasonable measures to ensure that the care that we provide our veterans is not only of high quality but is cost effective.

We should not be kicking into overdrive to privatize the healthcare that our veterans receive. They wish and prefer to have their healthcare provided for them at the VA.

This amendment would lead to an expansion of privatization. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, what the gentleman's amendment does is it encourages the privatization of in-home healthcare that we provide to our veterans.

The difference between providing care to our veterans from the VA and providing privatized home healthcare is one can ensure that, within the VA system, the veteran is cared for, oftentimes by another veteran or by someone who is accustomed to treating veterans and understands the unique and specific needs that they have.

Moving toward more and more privatization makes it so that veterans are less likely to be treated soon, more likely to be treated with care that is more expensive, and more likely to be treated by someone who really doesn't have experience in caring for a veteran.

Madam Chair, none of those things are positive, so I urge opposition to that amendment for that reason, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), had a better idea on this one. It is noncontroversial, and I do not oppose it because it supports the reduction in the backlog of veteran casework, which we are all committed to doing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I begin as well to take a moment to recognize Kelly Dixon Chambers, the staff director for the House Rules Committee Republicans whose last week on the Hill is this week.

There is no doubt that she is an extraordinary, exceptional, incredible public servant. I said last night in the Rules Committee, she is a master legislative strategist. She knows everything about everything about rules and procedures. She spent her time here on Capitol Hill working to improve this institution and to uphold the traditions of the Rules Committee. She has also done a lot to foster an environment of mutual respect and camaraderie behind the scenes, which we all benefit from and appreciate, especially during these very polarizing times.

In short, she is one of the most effective people I have ever worked with on Capitol Hill, and all I have to say is that I love her and I respect her a whole lot. All of us on this side of the aisle will genuinely miss her.

I also said last night that my only problem with Kelly is that she isn't a Democrat, but I don't hold that against her. In fact, she has made me sharper and better at my job because I know she always brings her A-game to everything that she does.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Kelly for all that she has done for Congress and for this country. She has put people over politics. She cares. She has accomplished a whole lot up here. She should be proud of her time serving in the people's House. For the people here who call her a friend and mentor, as I know I do, we wish her all the very best as she steps into a new chapter in her life and her career.

Moving on, let me get to the rule here.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be managing this rule. I am glad that I am allowed to speak on the floor again. As you remember, I was silenced 2 weeks ago for simply speaking the truth.

That is right. I was muzzled from that very rostrum for daring to recite facts, and I can think of at least 34 new facts that could get my words taken

down today, but I won't go there because I want to be allowed to say a few things without being canceled by the Republican majority for the high crime of merely speaking the truth.

This rule contains two bills, both of which I think are lousy.

First, is the House Republicans' Military Construction appropriations proposal for fiscal year 2025. This should be one of the least controversial funding bills Congress passes each year, but, this year, House Republicans are loading their funding bills with more culture war nonsense: the same attacks on abortion access, attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, and attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts.

We are talking about more narrow-minded, hateful MAGA riders that inject partisan politics into what should be a bipartisan bill.

This bill also holds the VA back from protecting struggling veterans who may pose a danger to themselves or others. It would hamper efforts to prevent Veterans from dying by suicide. This bill zeroes out funding for climate change and resilience projects, something that will jeopardize our national security because it means our military installations will not be prepared for the realities of the climate crisis.

At the end of the day, this funding bill is full of poison pills that endanger our national security and threaten the quality of life for veterans, those who serve, and their families.

Again, this should have been easy. This should have been a bipartisan bill where there would be very little debate or little dissension, and they turned it into this horrific culture war bill filled with things that, quite frankly, are very divisive and have no business being in the Military Construction appropriations bill.

Second on the agenda is H.R. 8282, a bill that imposes sanctions on the good people who work for the International Criminal Court and their families.

I know Members have a variety of thoughts on this measure, but, frankly, I think this is a bad, bad bill. The idea that the ICC is some evil institution is totally contrary to fact. The International Criminal Court is an important institution, and it is not in America's moral or strategic interest to attack the court for doing its job.

The U.S. recognizes the jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the ICC and cooperates with the ICC in cases ranging from Sudan to Ukraine and Russia, to the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony.

Fundamentally, this bill says that human rights don't matter. In fact, it totally undermines the rules-based international order that America helped build.

Let me be clear: I am already being challenged to explain U.S. double standards every time I meet with representatives of foreign governments. When I meet with human rights advocates from abroad, they are gutted, first, by the brutality and the inhumanity of the war in Gaza, and, second, by America's inexplicable abandonment of its commitment of human rights and justice for all.

What better gift to China or Russia, our most significant adversaries, than for us to undermine the international rule of law and gut institutions of accountability that the U.S. helped create and worked to consolidate for more than 75 years.

What better gift than to say: Yes, it is just fine to ignore or redefine human rights and international humanitarian law for reasons of political convenience.

What should our reaction be? First, we should read the evidence contained in the ICC filing. Second, we should wait for the judges to actually rule on the warrant applications. We don't know what their decision will be. When it comes down, if we disagree with it, we can say so.

What is not okay is to attack the court's existence or threaten its personnel and their families.

Republicans are already doing that in New York. It is wrong there and it is wrong here.

Finally, we should insist on credible, independent investigations of the crimes the ICC has alleged, which include, by the way, the unspeakable crimes committed by Hamas on October 7. Surely, I hope everybody here supports the ICC's effort to hold Hamas accountable.

We should also recognize the ICC's action for what it is. It is an urgent attempt at prevention. The ICC is urging Israel to change course and to stop the carnage against Palestinian civilians. It is calling upon the independent Israeli judiciary to investigate these alleged crimes and follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, before the worst unimaginable criminal charges become inevitable.

Should this bill pass, it would completely isolate us internationally, including and especially from our closest allies. It would deepen accusations of hypocrisy that have already caused a mind- boggling level of damage to the reputation of the United States, our diplomacy, and the entire range of our soft power capabilities.

I am just completely astounded by how little my Republican colleagues seem to even care about the massive ramifications of this bill. There was no hearing. There was no hearing at all. There were no witnesses, no markup, no nothing.

The Republican who testified last night in the Rules Committee had no clue what was even in the bill. He told us he wasn't on the committee of jurisdiction but he is. He didn't even know what the text of the bill was because the text kept on changing multiple times.

Is that how you conduct business in the people's House?

My Republican colleagues have turned this place into a joke. They are making a complete and total mockery of the committee process. On top of it all, we have another closed rule. How pathetic.

I mean, I get that the Republicans may not care about the implications of some of the things that they say or what they bring on the floor, but at least try to go through the motions. Let's at least have a hearing. Let's have witnesses. The Republicans could make believe they care about the facts and that they are serious about legislating.

Again, it is sad that this is the process that brings this bill to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania made a point when he got up that I was somehow trying to hide behind process. It is clear he wasn't listening to my very substantive speech in which I actually talked about the policy implications of what my Republican friends were doing.

Since he brought up process, and I think this is an important point to emphasize here because we are on the Rules Committee, I want to point out that sometimes I call the Rules Committee, under the Republicans, the break the rules committee.

Let's look at some of the rules that are being ignored today. This is from the official Republican Committee Report. Maybe the gentleman doesn't read it, but I do.

Let me quote: This waives ``all points of order against provisions in H.R. 8580, as amended,'' which includes ``Clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.''

The gentleman who just spoke routinely talks about how he is opposed to unauthorized appropriations and appropriations bills, yet that rule was waived by the Republicans.

``Clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure from being reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' That was ruled waived.

Here is the big one: ``Clause 12 of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of a bill or joint resolution pursuant to a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules that has not been reported by a committee.'' That is what is known, for my friends on the other side of the aisle, as the McGovern rule.

When I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we actually put this in

place, that bills that come before the Rules Committee ought to have a hearing and a markup by a committee of jurisdiction. We weren't always perfect, but we really tried to be. We really tried to be.

Why did they waive the McGovern rule? The reason why is because they short-circuited the legislative process. There were no hearings and no markup on the ICC bill, none, not at all, and no one can amend it, as well. No amendments are made in order.

Again, what was really puzzling to me was the Republican witness who came before the Rules Committee couldn't even tell us what the accurate text of the bill that we were considering was because it had been changed so many times. It was astonishing to watch this in action.

Rules and process matter because when you ignore the process, you get lousy bills, and nobody even knows what the implications of the ICC bill are.

Again, you didn't have time for a hearing? You could have done an emergency hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. You could have done an emergency markup before it came to the Rules Committee. You bypassed everything and kept on changing the text of the bill.

That is a lousy way to legislate. I will tell you, I can't wait until after November and my friends are no longer in charge because we can then demonstrate not only to my Republican friends but to the American people how a legislative process should work, how to get things done, how to be effective. This is irresponsible legislating.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who commented on my last comments where I conceded that we weren't perfect in following the McGovern rule, but I thank him for conceding that we followed it the overwhelming majority of the time.

Again, I find it really stunning that on a bill that has implications that my friends can't even respond to, they decided to not only forgo a hearing and a markup, but they kept on changing the text at the last minute.

He also was critical of President Biden and his foreign policy, but I want

to correct the record on that as well. When the other guy was President, I will remind the gentleman, Iran didn't just attack Israeli troops, they attacked U.S. troops. They attacked us.

The gentleman wants to talk about supporting our allies. His side held up aid for Ukraine for 9 months because their side bought into Kremlin propaganda. They were more interested in pleasing Vladimir Putin than they were in standing by our allies in Ukraine.

It was their side, a Republican President, who went to North Korea and tried to get a brutal dictator to like him. He tried to kowtow to Kim Jong-Un. It was their side, a Republican President, who tried to extort our Ukrainian allies by withholding U.S. aid, and then he was impeached over that.

It was his Republican candidate for President who praises Putin, fawns over Xi Jinping, says Viktor Orban is fantastic, and sends love letters to Kim Jong-Un.

It was a Republican President, the previous guy, who stood with America's adversaries. Contrast that with President Joe Biden. President Biden rallied the world to Ukraine's defense. President Biden has defended our ally Israel and their airspace, and President Biden has rebuilt America's image on the world stage by standing up for democracy and human rights. I am happy to compare President Biden's record to the other guy who they seem so in awe of and afraid of every single day of the week.

I would, again, remind my colleagues that the bill on the International Criminal Court had no hearing, no markup, no witnesses, no amendments, closed rule, nothing, and they can't even explain it. They couldn't even explain it in the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are different. I would just say to the gentleman that is why I am glad the ICC is actually going after Hamas and holding Hamas accountable. That is a good thing. I am sorry the gentleman doesn't agree with that.

As far as his numbers go on the rules, that was the most roundabout, crazy characterization and reconfiguration of numbers to essentially say and justify the fact that the Republicans are so ineffective and incompetent in the Rules Committee. I mean, they have lost seven rules. That has got to be a record. Seven of their own rules--they are in charge--have gone down. It is amazing when you listen to the gentleman try to rationalize all that is so irrational about the way the Republicans are running this place.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned now because I was admonished, again, for referring to the former President and mentioning a process that the United States Congress actually put forward. I don't even know what I can say anymore when it comes to the former President because everything is out of order. My friends on the other side of the aisle can say whatever they want about President Biden. They can say whatever they want about anything they want, and there seems to be no accountability. I am just referring to facts, and I get admonished. I don't understand this.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) which is germane and is compliant with the rules. That amendment would strike anti-trans, antigay, and anti-veteran provisions from the MILCON-VA appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that over 1 million American veterans are part of the LGBTQ+ community, including 134,000 veterans who are transgender. We know the Republicans have been fighting to kick trans people out of the military. Now it is 2024, and it is Pride Month, and what are House Republicans focused on? They want to deny these veterans, after they have selflessly defended our Nation, from receiving the medical care and support that they need.

They are spending time trying to prevent the VA from flying Pride flags. With all the discrimination members of the LGBTQ community have had to endure, Republicans in this bill protect those who discriminate against same-sex marriages. Of course, this is happening during Pride Month. The cruelty is the point, Mr. Speaker.

My amendment would simply allow a vote in the House to strike these backward policy riders from this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, enough with these Republican attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. Enough with the bigotry. Enough with the hate. Enough with the MAGA extremism. We are better than this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I say to the gentleman, again, we are talking about today, and my point was that we have a bill that the witnesses that came before the Rules Committee couldn't even accurately describe what was in the bill.

They had no idea because it changed so many times, couldn't really respond to questions about what the implications of the bill would be, and we are simply pointing out the fact that there was not a single hearing in the committee of jurisdiction on the legislation, not a single markup, no witnesses.

My friends bring this to the floor under a completely closed process so nobody can amend it. Nobody can change anything. Nobody can change a comma.

That is how the Republicans are running this House of Representatives, and it is pathetic, quite frankly. It is not the way the people's House should be run, and it shows disrespect for this institution. They do that day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the contrast is very clear for the American people. Democrats stand up for traditional American values like freedom, and Republicans are going all in on authoritarianism.

Democrats want to fight for our democracy. We believe it is worth fighting for and preserving. Republicans want to attack LGBTQ rights, women's rights, civil rights, and voting rights. Now they even want to attack IVF in their quest to control women's bodies. We had a Republican come before the Rules Committee advocating for that last night. It was scary, quite frankly.

Democrats believe in science, and Republicans spent the day yesterday spreading conspiracy theories about COVID and attacking Dr. Fauci.

Democrats stand for our Constitution and the rule of law. Republicans are falling over themselves to get in the good graces of their presumptive nominee, a candidate for President who brags on social media about how he wants a unified Reich. Who says that?

This is a candidate I can't even tell the truth about on the House floor because he is being treated like a king.

Now, we know someone was convicted of 34 felonies, but we aren't even allowed to say who. Republicans are spending so much time circling the wagons around he who must not be named that they are neglecting the job that the American people sent them here to do.

This Republican Party is totally lost. They are totally disconnected from what this country is about, and it is a national embarrassment.

Democrats are putting people first. It is as simple as that. Republicans are putting politics first, and they are running one of the most incompetent, ineffective sessions of Congress, maybe in American history, and certainly since I have been here.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I am afraid to say anything more because I am afraid my words will be taken down, and I will be silenced because this place is becoming so controlled, we have to be very, very careful of every single word we say here.

I will just conclude by saying this is an awful process. These bills that are being brought before us are not worthy of all this time and attention.

They are poorly drafted, and the appropriations bill, which should be totally bipartisan, they have loaded up with all kinds of MAGA extremist garbage, and we know it is going nowhere. What a waste of time. What a waste of time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1269 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. Before I talk about the rule, I want to recognize our staff director, Kelly Dixon.

I recognize the staff director of the House Rules Committee, Kelly Dixon Chambers.

I first met Kelly as a freshman Member of Congress. She has been a mentor of mine and, most importantly, she has been a friend. This is before I even joined the Rules Committee. Kelly has been a vital member of the House of Representatives for over 25 years.

From Congressman Ken Calvert's office, to the House Judiciary Committee, to the New York delegation, to the former offices of Speaker Kevin McCarthy when he was whip and leader, to today where she is a staff director of the Rules Committee majority staff under Chairman Cole and Dr. Burgess, Kelly has always been a leader in the House during some of the most consequential decisions over the past two decades.

Mr. Speaker, the House owes Kelly a debt of gratitude, and I look forward to working with her in the years to come.

Now back to the rule.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1269 provides for consideration of H.R. 8580, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2025.

This is under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and it provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule makes 47 amendments in order.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8282, the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the largest mass killing of Jews that we have seen since the Holocaust. This horrific assault attacked Israel by land, sea, and air, killing over 1,200 innocent civilians, including dozens of Americans. For perspective, this would be the equivalent of over 40,000 American dead and nearly 9,000 Americans being taken hostage.

In the aftermath of that atrocious attack, we have learned that families were burned alive, infants were decapitated, women were sexually assaulted, and other unthinkable acts of violence were committed.

To date, Hamas continues to hold as many as 130 hostages. Since those attacks, we have seen a clear divide in the United States and around the globe between those who stand with our ally, Israel, and those who stand with Hamas.

One of the organizations that stands with Hamas is the international kangaroo court, also known as the ICC. This court is anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic. The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC, and the court has absolutely no standing and no jurisdiction over our Nation or the nation of Israel.

Previously, the court has targeted American warfighters for defending our Nation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. They are now targeting our ally and partner, Israel, and drawing a false equivalence and distorted moral equivalency between the leaders of Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel.

That is why House Republicans will pass the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

This legislation would reimpose the Trump administration's sanctions against the ICC officials that investigate, arrest, detain, and prosecute U.S. citizens or allies, like Israel.

The choice is clear: Do you stand with our ally, Israel, or do you stand with Hamas?

Do you stand with this illegitimate court?

Additionally, as a Navy veteran and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to introduce FY25 MILCON-VA bill, which was introduced by Chairman Carter.

Under Chairman Cole's and Chairman Carter's leadership, H.R. 8580 will fully fund veterans' healthcare programs and benefits. It provides for an extra $75 million above the President's budget and $30 billion above last year's enacted level for veterans.

Further, this legislation also provides for robust funding for the Indo-Pacific region, invests billions in quality-of-life projects for our servicemembers and their families, and blocks the Biden administration from placing al-Qaida terrorists in our local communities.

This bill provides for an additional $412 million over the President's budget for military construction so we can invest more in our national security.

As we approach the 80th anniversary of D-day, this week's vote will be an important step in supporting our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, good luck hiding behind procedural arguments when talking about defending the ICC. This is a kangaroo court, and to defend it is to defend an institution that is anti- American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic, but we shouldn't be shocked that this is coming from the left and the Biden administration.

This administration has been weak. They have been feckless. They have been incompetent on foreign policy from now going back to when Joe Biden was sworn into office.

What are we seeing? The world is absolutely on fire.

In his first year alone, President Joe Biden green lit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to provide Russian gas to Europe while at the same time blocking the Keystone XL pipeline that would have actually led to energy exportation from this country.

He also issued 94 executive actions on immigration which led to an unprecedented invasion at our southern border. The President and his unelected bureaucrats in the administration are also directly responsible for the failed withdraw of the U.S. from Afghanistan, giving up the Bagram Airbase before we even evacuated, which led directly to the death of 13 American servicemembers, it stranded thousands of American citizens abroad, and it brought the Taliban back into power, something that we were there to counter for the last 20 years.

Let's talk about President Biden making the decision to delist the Houthi rebels from the terrorist watch list. What did that do? It led to a crisis in the Red Sea. He also placed an indefinite pause on LNG exports, which benefits--I can't make this up--Russia and Iran, rather than helping ourselves and our allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

That is just the start of the blunders of the Biden administration on Foreign Affairs. He also waived the billions of dollars in sanctions on Iran so their energy sector could grow and they could export energy, which, of course, led to Iran being able to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels, which has led to all the chaos in the Middle East.

Since October 7 alone, our servicemembers in the Middle East have been attacked over 100 times, including the deaths of three Americans in Jordan.

It just doesn't stop there. I just got back from a trip to Turks and Caicos, an official trip, a congressional delegation. There you have a small island nation that has roughly 60,000 citizens, and they are allowed to commit human rights violations on Americans, holding American detainees in a North Korean-style court system and legal system there. All it would take to bring the Americans that are wrongfully detained in Turks and Caicos home would be a do not travel order from Antony Blinken.

Do you think Secretary Blinken has issued an order? Of course he hasn't.

We have seen weakness. We have seen indecisive action from the State Department and that has emboldened these banana republics like Turks and Caicos to have draconian laws on their books that target American citizens.

Biden's weakness has done nothing but embolden our adversaries. It has emboldened Russia. It has emboldened China. It has emboldened Iran, and now you are seeing it embolden banana republics that are holding American hostages in basically the North Korea of the Caribbean, Turks and Caicos.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, to talk more about the ICC.

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

You can't make this stuff up. It is amazing. I am being gaslit in real time here, and so are the American people. I often say if it weren't for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all. Here we are, talking about process and procedure and totally ignoring the fact that the Democrats ran roughshod over process and procedure last Congress when they were in control.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the facts. Last Congress, the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee considered 30 pieces of legislation that did not go through regular order. That includes 28 McGovern waivers for unreported bills. You might say, oh, 28 out of 30, what about the other 2? Well, the other two were reported but without hearings.

It is amazing and so rich, being attacked for having a bill not going through regular order on a few occasions when the Democrats themselves had it 30 separate times in the last Congress. That is quite amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Again, it is amazing that I am hearing my friends across the aisle complain about closed rules and going through regular order. Again, we are being gaslit in real time by the left.

I remind my friends across the aisle that at this point in the 117th Congress--again, when Democrats were in control, this is when Chairman McGovern ran the Rules Committee--Democrats had made 61 percent of their rules closed. In this Congress, the GOP has passed 66 more measures out of the Rules Committee compared with the Democrats at this point in the 117th.

The GOP is legislating in this Congress. We have proportionally fewer closed rules over a much larger pool of bills, and 33 percent of our closed rules were because no amendments were submitted. They were closed because no one even put forward amendments. In the 118th, 81 percent of the Rules measures that have gone to a floor vote have garnered bipartisan support for final passage.

Again, Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle like to complain about amendments being made in order and they like to complain about regular order, but facts don't lie. They had 61 percent of their bills with closed rules. I just had a litany of bills that did not go through regular order. You can't hide from the stats.

Let's not fool ourselves. The American people don't care about arcane rules of procedure in the House. No one cares about this. What they do care about are things like foreign policy. It is amazing, like I am being gaslit on procedures in the House, I am being gaslit about the last administration's position on foreign policy.

I am sure if you would ask people around the world if they would rather have President Trump or President Biden, it would be President Trump, and here is why: President Trump actually killed al-Baghdadi, and he dismantled ISIS.

When it comes to Iran, he neutralized Soleimani. He also targeted proxy groups that were controlled by the Iranians in the surrounding area. He put the Quds Force and the Houthis on the terrorist watch list, actions the Biden administration has tried to reverse.

He blocked the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which weakened Russia. He had the Abraham Accords.

We had zero attacks from Russia during the period. Remember, it was under Obama that Russia came into the Crimea, and then Russia didn't do anything for 4 years. Then, magically, when the Democrats came in, showing weakness and vacillation in the face of aggression, then the Russians invaded more parts of Ukraine.

Also, when it comes to China, it was President Trump who put tariffs on China and held China to account. The Biden administration has done very little on that front.

The list goes on and on, but I will leave it at that for the sake of time.

Talking about being gaslit, we are being gaslit on the ICC, this international kangaroo court. There is so much disinformation out there about the ICC, especially regarding their actions on Israel.

Let me just clear some things up. One, the ICC's warrant filings are factually wrong; two, Israel has conducted itself consistently with international

law and its humanitarian obligations; three, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel as the nation is not an ICC member; and, fourth, the ICC warrant applications for Israeli leaders threaten U.S. national security. Let's just get the facts out there. Those are the facts, and you can't hide from them.

It is amazing how many of my friends across the aisle, beholden to the extreme far left, want to talk about these make-believe Israeli transgressions, when they wholeheartedly ignore the transgressions of international law by Hamas. You want to go through a list of all the international law that Hamas has broken? Let's do it.

Let's start with targeting civilians; not wearing a uniform; hiding among civilian populations; storing weapons in places like mosques and schools; having their military headquarters in a hospital; using torture, and rape; and deprivation of food, water, and medical aid for their hostages. This is just a short list, but it is amazing how the left, controlled by radical, dangerous extremists, refused to call out Hamas and their violations while latching on to these false perceived notions that the Israelis are somehow the ones in violation of international law.

I am sick and tired of the gaslighting. The American people know the truth, and we are going to see the results of that in a few months.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my friends across the aisle that I have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. I continue to get gaslit up here. At the end of the day, facts don't care about your feelings, and numbers don't lie.

I will distill this argument into two facts right now to show you the hypocrisy from the other side. Last Congress, the Democrats had 30 pieces of legislation that came outside of regular order.

At this same point in the 117th Congress compared to this Congress, the 118th, the Democrats had 61 percent of their bills come to the floor under closed rules. Again, numbers don't lie. Don't sit here and try to gaslight me.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, I don't even know where to begin, describing closed rules as threats to the institution, as disrespectful, as shameful.

Again, I remind the gentleman that last Congress, they brought 30 pieces of legislation to the floor that had not gone through committee.

At this same time last Congress, 61 percent of their rules were closed rules. The gaslighting has got to stop.

We are here today to talk about MILCON-VA and the international kangaroo court known as the ICC. This week when it comes to these two bills, Americans will see a stark difference between House Republicans and the dangerous far-left extremists on the other side of the aisle.

Some are saying that the bills are partisan exercises, and they are full of culture war issues. It is the Republicans that are taking the culture war issues out of these bills, at least out of MILCON-VA.

If you don't believe me, look at the actions of the VA. Under President Biden, the VA has gone far left and woke. These include initiatives in the VA like DEI and CRT. They just waste taxpayer-funded resources on these far-left culture wars that are coming from the left.

If you don't believe me, just look at the actions of the VA. The Department backtracked not too long ago after removing the iconic V-J Day picture from Times Square.

The iconic picture of V-J Day, for whatever reason, wasn't woke and had to be removed. That is quite amazing coming from the VA.

The VA also removed from their mission statement a quote from Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because that quote used male pronouns. You can't make this stuff up.

The Department uses a gender gingerbread person that teaches veterans and employees that gender is a spectrum, and it is fluid.

How about the Department's focus on the backlog of thousands of veterans' claims and veterans who can't receive timely care? Maybe they should focus on that instead of gender-neutral gingerbread men.

That is why House Republicans will pass FY25 MILCON-VA that will focus the Department's mission back to its core mission, which is taking care of veterans; not fighting culture war issues.

We protect veterans' Second Amendment rights. We prohibit DEI. We prevent critical race theory, and we put the Hyde amendment into the bill.

We are making this bill neutral and bipartisan. We are stripping out culture war issues that the far-left extremists have put in it.

Lastly, let's talk about the rule before us bringing up the piece of legislation that will protect U.S. citizens and servicemembers and our allies, including Israel, and that is to make sure we are working against the illegitimate sham court, the kangaroo court known as the

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I represent a district that over 90,000 Active-Duty military members and their families call home. As a former Navy helicopter pilot, military spouse, and now mom to children who serve, I am proud to be a voice for our military community here in Congress.

One of the aspects I am most passionate about advocating for is improving their quality of life, particularly their living conditions. To put it plainly, housing for our single, unaccompanied servicemembers is abysmal, and it is completely unacceptable.

In September 2023, the United States Government Accountability Office found a variety of living conditions were negatively affecting servicemembers' quality of life, such as sewage overflow, mold and mildew, broken windows and locks. I have seen it for myself and so has my staff.

The week I was sworn into office, I took my entire team to Virginia Beach and drove them around Naval Air Station Oceana to show them the conditions we ask our unaccompanied sailors to live in. We visited condemned barracks and other barracks that were decades old and had very little maintenance and upkeep. We saw rusted bathrooms, moldy ceilings, and dirty carpets.

To think of the conditions that we ask these often young, unaccompanied sailors to live in, I think of college dorms. I am also a mom to four children who are college aged, and we have done many college tours recently and visiting dormitories on campuses. Seeing the differences in where we are housing college-aged students and knowing what those kids do a lot of nights a week, and looking at where we are housing our unaccompanied servicemembers, knowing what we ask of those young people, it was a stark contrast and stark difference.

Our young men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for our country. It is only right to provide them with the quality of life deserving of their service and sacrifice. It is infuriating to me that we have not provided better for them.

Given the overall success of the military housing privatization initiative for military family housing and our current budgetary constraints, we need to think outside the box about housing solutions for our unaccompanied servicemembers.

That is why I am offering this amendment to encourage the approval and development of privatized housing for unaccompanied servicemembers, like the ones we have right now in Hampton Roads and San Diego. We cannot allow bureaucratic delays and fragmented approaches by the different services to hamper our efforts to fix problems plaguing our barracks on bases across the country.

We can and must work together to create better living conditions and housing options for those who serve. I want my children and their peers to be

proud of their Navy just like I was when I served.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I disagree with my colleague. Privatization is one solution, and privatization of family housing has come a long way.

Is it perfect, no, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is certainly a lot better than what we used to have, which was simply the defense budget and the government running all of family housing.

Family housing has come a long way since we have privatized it. There is a lot of oversight needed, and Congress needs to continue to provide the oversight so that we have the best family housing available for our military families who serve right along with our Active-Duty servicemen and -women.

Privatization is one way that we can think outside the box. The defense budget is always inadequate. We just don't have the amount of money that it takes to refurbish and redo all of the unaccompanied housing, all of the barracks that we have seen and that were listed in that scathing GAO report that came out. It is one solution.

Right now, we just have two. We have one in Norfolk and one in San Diego. We have two models of privatization.

Having visited the one in Norfolk, it is amazing to see the quality- of-life differences. They have private bedrooms. They have a communal kitchen that has actual spaces for them to make nutritious meals.

We have things like a gym. There is a pool and even a Jacuzzi and basketball courts. There is a theater room. There is a library.

There is plenty that offers the good quality of life that we know our servicemen and -women need, especially when they come home after a long deployment or after a long working day.

Those are the things that we can provide in privatized housing. Is it a perfect solution, no, but it is a way to augment what we have right now, and it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

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

Madam Chair, as a daughter of a veteran, the wife of a veteran, as a veteran myself, it is particularly important to me that our country keeps its promises to those who served.

Virginia's Second District is home to one of the highest populations of veterans in the country. An estimated 90,000 veterans live not within our borders but across the ocean in U.S. territories and Freely Associated States such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other islands across the Pacific.

We are responsible for providing care to all veterans, including those that reside within U.S. territories and Freely Associated States.

However, there is evidence that VA's estimate of the number of veterans living in these areas is far too low, and the Government Accountability Office has consistently criticized the model used by the VA to make these estimates.

This prevents the VA from allocating sufficient resources to serve those veterans, leading to gaps in care.

In addition, the VA does not have community care network providers in the Freely Associated States and limited local options for medical care, and healthcare is often only available after traveling by plane.

Most veterans who live in one of the Freely Associated States do not qualify for the VA travel benefits program, even though the closest VA clinic is sometimes thousands of miles away on another island.

VA care in these areas does not live up to its promise. I urge the VA to maintain and expand services available to these veterans, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just to close, again, about the privatization of housing. To look at and to compare and to enter both facilities, those that are privatized, and those that are purely funded by the Department of Defense, is it perfect, no, but it is a heck of a lot better than the current conditions that we have our unaccompanied servicemembers living in right now.

There are stark differences in those two pathways of life. I cannot speak more favorably to the privatized model. Again, is it perfect, no. Is there a lot of accountability and oversight that needs to happen, yes.

That contract process could probably be perfected and worked on. That is something that I think is in the responsibility of Congress.

We need to make sure that we have a contract with those privatized companies who also have reputations on the line so they are not just building and forgetting about those housing situations. They have reputations too, and they want to take care of our servicemembers.

In reality, what is happening in the two models we currently have in San Diego and Norfolk is a stark contrast to the DOD-funded, DOD-built, and DOD-supervised housing that we currently see on base, and I can't think of a better direction for our servicemembers.

As far as the VA carrying U.S. territories and Freely Associated States, I again encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I had the honor of growing up in a family with a strong history of service to our country.

My grandfather served in the Navy in World War II. My father served as a United States Army Green Beret in Vietnam and later served in the Army Reserves.

I spent some of the best years of my life in the Navy as a helicopter pilot with many members who became like family to me.

As a third-generation veteran, the wife of a veteran, and a mother of future veterans, I know how important it is to take care of our men and women in uniform after they return home from service.

Unfortunately, these issues surrounding mental health are a complex and unfortunate challenge for many of our Nation's heroes.

Since 9/11, it is estimated that over 30,000 Active-Duty servicemembers and veterans have died by suicide. Most statistics average approximately 20 a day.

This is four times more than the number of servicemembers killed in combat during the global war on terror.

We have the responsibility to provide those who have served our country with the medical care, including the mental health care and support that they deserve.

While the VA has expanded their suicide outreach and mental health initiatives, there is more work to be done. We cannot allow the men and women who have served our country to slip through the cracks. We can and we must do better.

That is why I have offered this amendment, to ensure the VA fully funds and effectively executes mental health care programs with a special emphasis on suicide prevention and outreach.

Returning home from combat and transitioning to civilian life is often extremely difficult for our servicemembers.

Access to programs and resources for suicide prevention can help those who are struggling and ultimately save lives. We must protect our veterans, just as they have protected us. I urge my colleagues to stand up for veterans and vote in favor of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, there is a stark difference between family privatized housing and unaccompanied privatized housing for our single servicemembers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I represent a military-heavy district with five bases, and all of those installations have buildings that are in disrepair or condemned. I am shocked at some of the conditions I see on the military bases in my district. I drive around, and it is disheartening to see the buildings that are in disrepair, that are falling apart, and that are eyesores.

I have driven in family housing where right across the street will be an empty, old BOQ building that will have the doors swinging open and the curtains blowing in the breeze from windows that are broken and refrigerators sitting with their doors ajar out in the hallways. These are buildings that are awaiting demolition that sit literally for years and are eyesores. We haven't prioritized demolition projects on these bases.

When I think about recruitment and retention for our all-volunteer force, I worry about those impressions that we are leaving with other families, with our military families and Active-Duty servicemen and - women that are driving through bases.

Not prioritizing military demolition projects has created safety issues directly affecting the quality of life and quality of service of our military personnel, their families, and surrounding communities. Poor conditions on military bases can hamper operational efficiency and readiness. Condemned buildings may restrict space for training, maintenance, and equipment storage. Lack of suitable facilities can delay operations, hinder training exercises, and impact the overall effectiveness of military units stationed on the base.

My amendment would ensure the Department of Defense allocates additional funding specifically for the demolition of condemned buildings on military installations. If we recognize the importance of maintaining and improving our installation infrastructure, we can ensure that we don't deter potential recruits and impact retention rates.

Servicemembers and their families may be reluctant to stay in such environments, affecting the overall strength and morale of the military community. My amendment would ensure the necessary resources are available to carry out the demolition projects efficiently and safely by reducing bureaucratic red tape and expediting the review and approval of demolition plans. It is crucial to address and improve these poor conditions to ensure the well-being of military personnel.

I can't overstate that when we are so focused on recruitment, retention, and quality of life, when I get in my minivan and I drive around bases and see buildings that are falling apart, that are dilapidated, that have broken glass, broken doors, those are eyesores. I think of what kind of impression that leaves on a person who is a new recruit right out of boot camp who shows up on a base and drives through a series of these buildings that are due to be demolished, but we can't get that done. When we call, when we pick up the phone and ask base leadership, they say it is going to be several years from now. I have to look at that building or other members of the service and their families have to look at those buildings on their drive to and from work, on their drives to and from commissaries or to and from their jobs. We have to do better for our servicemen and -women.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to help make our military installations more appealing and safer for members of our armed services and to vote in favor of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1269, I call up the bill (H.R. 8282) to impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are at a moment in history where our long-held fears are being realized.

The International Criminal Court has overstepped its authority and set a dangerous precedent by seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel's Defense Minister Gallant, alongside Hamas terrorists.

I will be clear: The case against Israel is baseless.

Mr. Meeks and I wanted in good faith to make this a bipartisan bill, and I thank him for that.

Initially, the White House supported this idea; however, on May 28, they did a 180-degree turn. In response, even Democrat Senator Cardin has criticized the administration saying: ``I am disappointed. I thought they were going to try and work on a bipartisan bill. . . . ''

I agree with Mr. Cardin, and I agree with Mr. Meeks as we tried to make this bipartisan.

The United States and Israel are not members of the ICC. The ICC itself was created as a court of last resort if national governments are unwilling or unable to try cases in their jurisdiction.

The United States and Israel do not fall into this category. Despite this, the ICC prosecutor's statement on the warrant applications contains several allegations that are directly contradicted by the Biden administration's recent report pursuant to the National Security Memorandum-20.

I have many problems with National Security Memorandum-20, but this report clearly stated: ``We do not currently assess that the Israeli Government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.''

It also described in significant detail Israel's own systems for ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law and for investigating possible violations of international and humanitarian law.

Moreover, comparing the legitimate, democratically-elected officials in Israel who were thrust into a war that they didn't ask for and that they didn't start to Hamas terrorists only highlights the complete disconnect of this politicized international body.

This is a war Hamas started.

Israel was forced into a war they didn't want, and now they have no choice but to finish it. Further, Hamas is making it infinitely worse because they use human shields. They hide their control and command centers behind hospitals and schools, and they put civilians in harm's way.

There are many, many unspeakable tragedies in this war. I have seen videos of Hamas terrorists killing innocent Palestinians simply trying to access humanitarian aid. Hamas does not care about civilian casualties. Their only objective is to remove Israel from the map.

Israel is fighting in what is likely the most difficult urban warfare landscape that has ever existed, and they have done everything in their power to limit casualties and facilitate humanitarian aid, but the same cannot be said of Hamas.

It is absolutely outrageous for the ICC to be pursuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials and announcing it on CNN before a decision has even been made.

Mr. Meeks and I were prosecutors. We would never announce arrest warrants on national television on CNN. Failing to act here in the Congress would make us complicit with the ICC's illegitimate actions.

We must not stay silent. We must stand with our allies. If the ICC is advancing a case against an American or

an allied country who is not party to the ICC, this bill will impose sanctions on ICC officials and others supporting that case.

We need to act quickly because this case is already advancing much faster than expected. Even the ICC's own staff did not know the warrant applications would be going ahead at this pace. That is why we are advancing this bill straight to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up to international bullies who seek to undermine international law under the false pretext of justice. What happens if Americans are next as they looked at Americans on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

This sets a dangerous precedent where now it is Israeli officials, but tomorrow it could be Americans. It is a very dangerous precedent.

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

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

Let me just say to my dear friend, Mr. Meeks, that he knows we worked on a version of this bill and came to a bipartisan resolution that, ultimately, was rejected by the White House, and I think that is unfortunate.

I also would like to state that the alarms that this bill harms U.S. alliances, I think, are overstated. The bill's sanctions are triggered by Presidential determination that a particular foreign person has supported illicit ICC efforts against protected persons, so that is against American citizens or the citizens of U.S. allies who have not submitted to ICC's jurisdiction.

Furthermore, and this is the most important point, this bill, and we did this at the behest of the Democrats, gives the President the ability to waive these sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), the author of this bill. I thank him for working so closely not only with me but with the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

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

Let me say first, I am extremely troubled by how the ICC has acted, and I think everybody in this body should be, both Republican and Democrat. Americans should be concerned.

More than 20 years ago, our predecessors had the foresight to know full well that the ICC would one day try to target democratic countries that had their own robust judicial systems over which the ICC has no legitimate jurisdiction.

In 2020, the ICC decided to authorize a formal investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. A large bipartisan group of House Members wrote to the Secretary of State at that time in response with a strong concern stating: ``Both Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to join the court in part because they feared its politicization and misuse.''

That is exactly what has happened here today. They have no basis for these actions, and by seeking warrants for Israel's Prime Minister and Defense Minister, they have cheapened this court's reputation and exposed it for what it really is--an illegitimate court that puts politics over justice.

Today it is Israel, Mr. Speaker, but tomorrow it could be the United States. We must sanction those who deliberately abuse their power for political gain. Their actions seek to undermine Israel and its people, who are in a fight for their very existence. We must act not only to protect Israel, but ourselves, from these unelected international bureaucrats.

If they willingly seek to imprison our allies or the United States, we must send a clear message--you are neither welcome nor wanted on American soil. America always stands behind our allies and their legitimate governments.

If I could just say to my dear friend, Mr. Meeks, and to our colleagues in the House, we did work very hard to get to a bipartisan agreement, a bipartisan bill that the Speaker approved and Mr. Jeffries approved, but when it went to the White House, it was rejected.

I always think--and I think Mr. Meeks agrees--that we are always strongest, particularly this committee, when we speak with one voice as one nation, in this case to the ICC and to the judges. A partisan messaging bill was not my intention here, nor do I believe it was Mr. Meeks' intention, but that is where we are right now.

I remain forever hopeful and optimistic, however, that during the process and during the course of this legislation that we can still get back to that bipartisan bill that we talked about, whether it is reached when this goes over to the Senate or perhaps Mr. Meeks and I can mark up that bipartisan bill on our committee, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and then get it to the House floor where we can then proceed with regular order in a bipartisan fashion that I believe would be best for this Nation, best for Israel, and best to send deterrents to the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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