H.Res. 614

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4366, with great respect to both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Chairwoman Granger and Chairman Carter, who are friends but with whom we strongly disagree on this legislation.

The FY 2024 military construction, veterans affairs, and related agencies bill is, sadly, not one that I can support.

Back in May, the subcommittee mark of the MILCON-VA bill cut the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund by $14.7 billion in 2024 and completely eliminated the toxic exposures fund in 2025, less than a year after we passed the bipartisan Honoring our PACT Act that promises dedicated funding for veterans of all wars exposed to Agent Orange, burn pits, and other toxic substances.

This was in addition to the default on America act introduced in April by Republicans, which included a $2 billion rescission to immediately cut critical funding for VA and include no protections for veterans funding. We pushed back hard on these cuts as Democrats, and we were successful.

Thankfully, as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, President Biden was able to undo that grievous harm by delivering the promise we all collectively made to our veterans by fully funding the toxic exposures fund.

However, the problems did not stop there, and Democrats made significant efforts to right the other major wrongs in this bill, but, unfortunately, to no avail.

The MILCON-VA bill is traditionally one of the more bipartisan bills--actually, so often that it is almost indistinguishable who is in the majority and who wrote those bills.

That is not the case, sadly, this year because it is riddled with partisan riders, coming out of the full committee on a party-line vote significantly worse off than where it started. Riders include preventing VA from implementing its interim final rule that provides access to abortions for the life or health of the mother and in the case of rape or incest, as well as abortion counseling to provide healthcare services for women who desperately need it, and, importantly, to ensure that veterans have equal access to healthcare regardless of what State they live in because they get their healthcare from a Federal agency.

It includes riders that do everything from prohibiting VA from implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as well as training; prohibiting VA from flying the Pride flag over VA facilities; creating a license for people and organizations to discriminate against LGBTQI+ people under the guise of religious liberty and prevents the Federal Government from adequately responding; and prohibiting access to gender-affirming care, further disenfranchising veterans from VA.

VA is a place where all veterans should feel welcome, included, and cared for. All veterans means all veterans, and what this bill does is shameful.

On the MILCON side, this bill cuts funding for servicemembers and their families by $1.5 billion compared to the enacted level, compared to current services.

The Republicans have cut military construction funding by $1.5 billion compared to the current funding. In fact, this bill is $200 million lower after the full committee markup than when it was first introduced in subcommittee. Even after the agreement with President Biden was signed into law, this bill cuts even more.

We have a recruitment and retention problem, Mr. Chairman, and this bill cuts funding for military construction.

We have major quality-of-life issues for our servicemembers, and this bill cuts funding for military construction and cuts funding for things like childcare centers, training centers, and airplane hangars that house and protect our billions of dollars of military equipment.

This bill cuts dedicated funding for PFAS forever chemicals remediation and cleanup, which is a cut of $200 million from the current level, and dedicated funding for military installation climate change and resiliency projects, which is a cut of $90 million from the current level.

There is an enormous need for funds to clean up PFAS forever chemicals contamination at BRAC sites as the services are still in the early stages of dealing with PFAS forever chemicals contamination.

Dedicated PFAS forever chemicals funding has previously been provided in this bill so we can ensure continued progress in remediating contamination at closed bases and minimize the impact for those surrounding communities. This is critical funding needed to fulfill our commitment to ensure those pieces of land are safe for future use and for people who live nearby. This is poison that Republicans are refusing to provide funding to clean up.

Furthermore, neglecting to continue investing in protecting our installations from climate change is a national security risk. We all know how extremely costly disaster assistance funding is. I am from Florida. I certainly know about that better than most.

Last year, we provided DOD with $90 million, 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 would threaten future military readiness.

Cutting military construction by $1.5 billion 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. We are backtracking on our commitment to our servicemembers and their families.

To make matters worse, veterans rely on programs throughout the Federal Government, not just programs in this bill. Instead of honoring the bipartisan budget agreement that this Chamber voted into law just last month, the FY 2024 House appropriations bills collectively break the commitment that was negotiated, agreed to, passed by a majority of Congress, and signed into law by President Biden to adequately fund critical domestic investments. Instead, these bills are written to the same exact number used before negotiations even began.

These drastic cuts diminish access to education, transportation, job opportunities, and food assistance that veterans and their families rely on.

Is there no line that Republicans won't cross? Is there no population that is off-limits?

The MILCON-VA bill is just one piece of the puzzle, Mr. Chairman, and gutting all the other programs that veterans and their families rely on throughout the Federal Government breaks our promises to veterans and pulls the rug out from under those who served our country and whom we promised to take care of upon their return. I cannot and will not support it.

The House MILCON-VA bill, as well as all 11 other appropriations bills, are headed for a collision course with the Senate, which got to work in a bipartisan manner. By the way, their version of this bill passed unanimously out of full committee. They got to work in a bipartisan manner to complete appropriations bills on time, consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

These appropriations bills renege on the agreement and risk an automatic, across-the-board cut with a CR, toward which we are clearly headed--or, worse, toward a government shutdown.

I will follow, Mr. Chairman, one of the first tenets that I learned as a legislator many years ago: Your word is your bond. I will stand by our veterans and our servicemembers by opposing this bill that deprives them of the services, care, and quality of life that they have earned and deserve.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a fierce advocate for our communities' veterans and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

The gentlemen from Tennessee and California understand what kind of money really matters here. It is very nice to say that you are $800 million above the President's budget request.

The money that matters is where we are now and what Republicans are proposing to spend going forward. Republicans are cutting--which, of course, Mr. Cline neglected to mention--military construction $1.5 billion below what we spend now. That is a cut by anyone's definition. They can play games with the language and the way they describe things, but there is no getting around that they are cutting $1.5 billion from military construction.

What does that mean? That might just sound like, oh, we will build a few less buildings, it is not going to be that bad. Understand that DOD has assessed that 30 percent of our military infrastructure around the world is in fair or poor condition. Many of us have traveled around the world to inspect military bases, and we talk to our troops and pledge to our servicemembers how much they mean to us and how we have their backs. I have had the opportunity to be shown places where our hangar doors are held together with wax and spit, particularly in places like Okinawa and other areas where there is a lot of erosion and metal rusts more quickly. I live in a coastal State, and I have a coastal district, so I understand what happens there when you are on the coast from the salt air. I watched a servicemember try to pull closed a hangar door that was jury-rigged with a coat hanger because they couldn't get the door closed the way it normally

should, and we did not provide them funding anywhere in the near future to ensure that we can keep billions of dollars' worth of military equipment safe.

Republicans are standing here and saying things that absolutely do not pass the straight-face test when they are trying to suggest that they are doing right by our servicemembers.

We have a retention problem in our military. We have people who have testified to the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee who are current servicemembers who talked to us about how they intended to spend their careers in the service, but because of the way they and their families felt treated, the decrepit housing that the military can't seem to get straight when it comes to dealing with mold and broken items and repairs that are necessary, they chose a different career path.

If we continue on the path that Republicans have proposed, then what that means is that we are going to lose servicemembers, like we are already losing. That is irresponsible and unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say at a later time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), who represents tens of thousands of military servicemembers as well as veterans and is an incredible advocate on their behalf.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

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

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the expression goes: Show me your budget, and I will show you what my values are.

It is very clear with the lollipop tree of culture war riders that this bill that funds the quality of life and the national readiness and security of the United States of America and the protection and quality of life of our military servicemembers, it is clear that because this bill cuts $1.5 billion below what we are currently funding in military construction, the Republicans have shown where their values are.

They can put all the lipstick on the pig that they have developed in this

bill that they want, but at the end of the day, they are still cutting $1.5 billion from military construction. That is cutting funding for airport hangars, for training centers, for childcare centers, for infrastructure that ensures that we can keep our servicemembers safe when they are serving overseas, while they are serving in the United States, and that is something that we have not done in modern times in this bill.

Why? Because generally the military construction, veterans affairs, appropriations bill is, on a bipartisan basis, written as a commitment that we make to take care of our servicemembers while they are serving in the military on Active Duty and to take care of our veterans when they transition to retirement and spend the rest of their lives as veterans.

This committee has a special responsibility. We are the only committee in the Congress that is responsible for the entire life cycle of an individual from when they start their service on Active Duty all the way through Active Duty and through their life as a veteran. We have a special responsibility to make sure that we are taking care of them, and cutting $1.5 billion is the opposite of that.

The values that our friends on the other side of the aisle have shown is very clear. What they were more interested in doing, and the priority that was at the top of their agenda, included riders that prevent all veterans from getting equal access to healthcare no matter where they live. What they want to do in this bill--and you will see in subsequent amendments that will be offered--is they want to take away women veterans' right, their ability to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.

Furthermore, because veterans get their healthcare from the VA, it is essential that we do not discriminate against those veterans, those women veterans, no matter where they live; that they be able to get that access to healthcare whenever they need it to ensure that they can make their own reproductive healthcare decisions regardless of the State they live in.

We spent the bulk of our time in the subcommittee and the full committee debating riders that do everything from prohibiting VA from implementing diversity and equity policies so that all veterans, no matter their religion, their culture, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, that all veterans are treated equally; that we can ensure that no one feels alienated when walking through the doors of the VA facility.

The Republicans zap any program, any policy related to treating veterans equally and making everyone feel welcome when they walk in that door.

It was a top priority for them to prohibit VA facilities from flying the Pride flag over VA's facilities. If that is one of their top priorities, it is no wonder that they are cutting a billion-and-a-half dollars out of military construction, because our friends on the other side of the aisle have their policies backwards when it comes to taking care of the people who have served our country and continue to serve our country.

They have given a license to discriminate against people who are LGBTQIA+ under the guise of religious liberty. They are preventing the Federal Government from adequately responding to that and from VA to provide healthcare services to everyone equally, and they are prohibiting access to gender-affirming care, which no matter what you might like to believe on the other side of the aisle, there are people who have served our country who deserve those services.

All veterans should feel welcomed, included, and cared for. The fact that they are cutting funding for PFAS forever chemical cleanup means that we are going to be causing cancer and severe illness--which people are already getting by being exposed to these forever chemicals. We are going to ensure, because of the Republican values that are reflected in this bill, cutting funding for PFAS forever chemicals, we are going to ensure that more people who served our country and who live nearby facilities that need to be cleaned up from these chemicals get sick and eventually die. That is on them.

There is enormous need for more funding to help make sure that we can do right by our veterans. This bill does the opposite, and I stand in opposition to it. I urge all Members to join me in voting against this bill so that we can go back to the drawing board.

We will likely go back to the drawing board, I am quite sure, as this bill is on a crash course with the Senate bill which does a much better job at living up to the values that we all should adhere to, and that is taking care of people who have served our country and are serving our country nobly now.

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and commend him for his efforts to address the severe flooding problems that have occurred in and around West Point.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I strongly oppose this amendment to cut the NATO Security Investment Program. It is hard to imagine a worse time for us to be cutting funding from our international obligations when Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine and our international obligations and cooperation are so essential in order to ensure that Ukraine can maintain its sovereignty and ensure that Russia is not allowed to be successful here and then repeat the same thing across the globe.

The program, also known as NSIP, is a core part of America's contribution toward shared territorial defense with its allies. Moreover, the projects that NSIP funds often are already aligned with U.S. European Command needs.

Our NSIP contributions often closely align with U.S. requirements, like projects for safety and runway upgrades at airfields that our planes use and fuel and dock improvements at ports that our ships use.

The program is experiencing a period of growth as the alliance seeks to address necessary deferred infrastructure needs. This amendment would cut funding for the program below the requested level, shortchanging America's commitment to its allies, and instead move it to the spending reduction account.

Military construction programs are already funded at $1.5 billion below the enacted level, as I have talked about, and this amendment is seeking to cut it further.

The United States contribution to NSIP, as a percentage of the overall program, is much smaller proportionally than the United States share of the alliance's gross national income. Simply put, our allies are more than paying their fair share in the Security Investment Program.

NSIP funding is necessary for NATO, and it is necessary for American national security. We should not jeopardize it with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this grossly irresponsible amendment. This amendment would take a huge cut, $73 million, from the NATO Security Investment Program during a time when increased funding is essential for long-deferred projects.

Cutting funding for the NATO Security Investment Program is not only shortsighted from a national security perspective, but it isn't even sound long-term fiscal policy. These investments ensure a robust American and NATO presence to deter hostile nations and prevent even greater costs to American taxpayers down the road.

One only has to look at the news to understand that we have hostile nations that wish to do us and our allies harm. A $73 million cut from the NATO Security Investment Program would put us in more jeopardy alongside our allies.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that international cooperation and strong alliances are as essential as ever. These projects are not America paying other countries' bills. In fact, America pays a proportionally small amount to the program compared to the size of our economy in relation to the rest of NATO.

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.

These projects are agreed-upon NATO requirements and oftentimes have a direct benefit to supplement existing U.S. requirements. These sites include ones directly benefiting U.S. forces through the use of upgraded ports, airfields, and communications.

Our contributions to NATO represent only a small portion of overall defense spending, but the strength of the 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 funding from the bill, shortchanging the military construction portion by over $73 million. It is irresponsible. It is dangerous.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It includes 28 amendments: 2 bipartisan, 14 for Republicans, and 12 for Democrats. I am glad to see that we can at least come together around certain aspects of this bill to support our veteran servicemembers and their families and the leadership of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez), who is here as an advocate on behalf of her constituents serving in the military as well as our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is here to stand up to make sure that our veterans get access to legal care.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The VA strives to fairly represent and support the communities that it serves, and all veterans deserve equitable and fair access to the healthcare and benefits that they deserve. Diversity and inclusion foster a healthy workplace environment and promote equal opportunity through smart outreach, retention, and education.

Our veterans--despite the sponsor's denial of a more greatly diverse VA--increasingly are diverse themselves, and they deserve that.

The bill already rejected the budget request to fund the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion at the levels needed to support the department in 2024 and instead holds the office flat at the same funding level provided in 2023, and now this amendment seeks to eliminate the already inadequate funding in the bill entirely.

What is so threatening about the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion?

This office, among the many things it does, prevents harassment and discrimination problems.

I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to combat that, why we wouldn't to make sure that everybody is able to come to work or to be treated at the VA in an evenhanded and fair way.

It heads off costly legal problems for the VA and saves taxpayer money in the long term which I thought was something that our friends on the other side of the aisle are interested in.

I believe the real issue is that our friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the increasing diversity that is occurring in this country, and there is an effort underway as a result across all appropriations bills to excise that word and any policy related to it and to cut anything related to diversity regardless of the purpose and need of the office.

Mr. Chairman, this is an inherently discriminatory, unfair, and bigoted amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chair, during the process of applying for disability benefits, VA determines whether or not a beneficiary can manage their own financial affairs. If not, VA will assign them a fiduciary to protect the veteran.

VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made that determination.

In assigning a fiduciary, VA must also report the beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS system, as, under the law, they are adjudicated as mentally defective. This reporting prevents the beneficiary under Federal law from purchasing a firearm.

The program has a full due process system, and veterans can file an appeal. This is an example of generating a controversy where there is none.

The process of applying for disability benefits is entirely separate from the processes by which veterans receive VA healthcare. The Veterans Health Administration, which handles disability benefits, does not take away veterans' firearms.

However, by implying that VA bureaucrats are going to take guns away from veterans, this amendment not only does nothing to increase access to care but its very introduction seeks to dissuade veterans from even seeking healthcare that they have earned in the first place.

Moreover, this amendment deals with an authorizing issue and should not be debated on an appropriations bill. This is policy, not funding.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

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

Madam Chair, let me make clear that the Department of Veterans Affairs has robust due process policies and regulations in place for incompetency determinations and remind our colleagues that one of the three ways in which someone is denied an opportunity to possess a firearm is when they have been declared mentally incompetent.

There are very robust provisions in the processes at the VA to ensure that there is due process in place. On top of that, the VA has the ability to grant relief from disability in the event that clear and convincing evidence is presented that affirmatively, substantially, and specifically shows that the beneficiary is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public and that granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest.

That is the kind of safety measure that we want, to make sure that when a veteran has been declared mentally incompetent, Madam Chair, that they are not able to get access to a firearm.

Due process is important. Protecting the public and the individual is important, as well.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I think it is important to make clear that this debate is not about whether veterans in a State where it is legal can get access to marijuana. It is not even about whether doctors at the VA can communicate about those options with their patients because they can. VA already does that. We allowed that several years ago.

What it does do and what this debate is about is to ensure that because marijuana is still an illegal substance under Federal law, if we allow this amendment to pass, it would potentially put VA employees, healthcare providers and other VA employees at risk of DEA enforcement actions. That is not something that we can change with this amendment, no matter how much you might want to have this amendment move forward.

While some States might have legalized marijuana for medical purposes and allow physicians to prescribe it to patients, VA providers are still subject to Federal enforcement actions through the Drug Enforcement Administration. The VA has policies in place prohibiting physicians from completing forms, not from communicating with their patients, and they can't register veterans in a State medical marijuana program themselves. However, veterans certainly can register themselves to do that.

There is a concern that if legislation forced the VA to change or stop enforcing its policies, as this amendment is proposing, in the absence of systemic changes to Federal drug policy outside the VA that providers could be at risk of penalties or other legal action.

The proper place for this discussion, Madam Chair, is in the authorizing committee, which my colleague, the sponsor of the amendment serves on. Have a discussion and a debate over policy to change the Federal enforcement action risk that we would be placing VA employees in if this amendment moved forward. Move it to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and prohibit DEA enforcement action.

This debate is happening in the wrong bill on the wrong topic. I oppose the amendment for that reason, while separately not opposing the idea that there are legal ways that veterans are able to get access to cannabis and marijuana. However, we do have to make sure we can continue to allow VA employees to be protected from prosecution as a result of the potential impact that this amendment would have.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit the enforcement of any COVID-19 mask mandates. However, the VA has already relaxed mask mandates except in high-risk areas where patients could be put in danger by someone who has a respiratory infection.

For example, the VA continues to require masks near chemotherapy units, transplant units, and emergency rooms. In other words, this amendment would override safety precautions put in place for the VA's most at-risk patients.

It would block masking requirements near chemotherapy patients, whose immune systems have been brutally weakened by treatments to fight cancer. It would block masking requirements in the vicinity of surgery patients, where a dangerous respiratory virus could be deadly. It would block masking requirements near intensive care units filled with patients with severe, life-threatening illnesses.

This amendment is reckless, and it would endanger the lives of our most vulnerable patients at the VA. This amendment is not about a mask mandate at the office, it is not about a mask mandate at the grocery store. This amendment would block mask requirements at VA hospitals and healthcare facilities. How ludicrous could anything be?

It is astonishing that the gentleman would suggest that, in a hospital setting, around vulnerable individuals, particularly those that are extremely vulnerable, that we would be prohibiting a hospital from requiring people to wear masks so that people don't die of an illness contracted as a result of being exposed to someone who might be carrying germs that they are not aware of.

Our veterans have sacrificed so much for this country. It is our responsibility to protect their health, not to risk their lives for a political stunt.

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Extreme MAGA Republicans are once again trying to prevent people-- trying to make sure that we have more people get sick rather than fewer.

In a hospital setting, with medical experts, neither of whom have spoken on this amendment today, it is imperative that we listen to medical experts.

When you are in an intensive care unit, when you are receiving chemotherapy, when you are in a medically risky situation, ensuring that the people around you that come in from the outside don't get you sick and potentially risk you severe illness and death, that is a responsible medical policy.

What Republicans are proposing is to make sure that the VA can't keep its patients safe. That is irresponsible, in the name of the extreme MAGA opposition to doing anything to ensure that people don't get COVID. The stunning irresponsibility is surprising, even for them.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I really can't believe I have to say this out loud, but vaccines have been essential in reducing the severity of COVID.

I would note that VA's vaccine requirement currently applies specifically to healthcare personnel, who are the people most in danger of not only contracting, but spreading this disease, especially to the vulnerable patients that VA serves, many of whom are at high risk for the long-term effects of COVID.

Additionally, at its highest point during the pandemic, VA had over 15,000 staff unable to work due to either infection or exposure, with over 9,000 of those clinical staff. That has a significant impact on patient care, and I think we should all agree that no veteran should be turned away from care because there wasn't a provider available to treat them.

VA took extremely reasonable steps to protect its patients and its workforce, and we shouldn't be tying VA's hands when it comes to managing their workforce and pursuing workplace safety and protecting its patients.

It was a responsible decision to limit the vaccine requirement to care providers in clinical settings, and this amendment, if it passes, will ensure that more VA employees get sick, more of their patients will get sick, and there is a certainty that more people will die if we don't ensure that VA employees who treat patients are vaccinated. That is just common sense and should be understood based on the experience of the time we all spent battling the pandemic.

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

Madam Chair, I think it is important to point out that it is not just healthcare providers that work in VA healthcare facilities. Maintenance workers work in VA healthcare facilities and interact with patients and they move back and forth throughout the facility.

Cafeteria workers, other people who are not healthcare professionals work in VA facilities in and around the most sensitive patients being provided with care in the most intense healthcare environments. They can infect people with COVID. They can infect healthcare providers who work at the VA who interact with patients even more closely, and they can infect patients directly.

It is a responsible policy to ensure that where there is a severely ill patient or someone who is extremely vulnerable and has their immunity lowered--as a breast cancer survivor, I can tell you that when you go through chemotherapy, which I did not, but I have obviously spent a lot of time on understanding what breast cancer patients and people who go through chemotherapy experience, your immunity is knocked out.

So we are going to prohibit people who work in VA healthcare facilities from wearing masks to ensure that someone who has had their immunity system knocked out from being protected from an individual who might have COVID, while they are at work? That is grossly irresponsible, and it would result, potentially, in people getting sick and dying from something other than what they are being treated for at the VA.

That is the height of irresponsibility, and I can't believe that our friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to risk the life and health of VA patients with this irresponsible policy.

We have to make sure in a healthcare setting that people who interact with patients in any way are protecting the patients from getting sick, and that is why this amendment should be defeated.

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

Madam Chair, in March of this year, VA announced it is updating its 1959 mission statement: ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have served in our Nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors,'' and that was a way to make VA a more inclusive and inviting place.

VA's previous mission statement read: ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise: `To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.' ''

The VA is a place where all veterans should feel welcomed, included, and cared for, and the previous mission statement did not adequately reflect the true veteran population. Only men were really reflected in the statement.

Today, women are the fastest growing group of veterans, and it is about time that we are reflected in VA's mission statement.

I am pleased the VA made this important and monumental change, honoring the past by making sure that we continue to make reference to President Lincoln's words and honoring the spirit of President Lincoln's intent, but also making sure that we truly honor all of our Nation's veterans, not just the men who have served our country.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment because this is exclusionary, and we want to make sure that the VA continues to be a more inclusive place and recognizes all veterans who serve, not just those who are men.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership, and the manager of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

The United States military, each and every soldier, each and every member of every single branch, take an oath when they leave their loved ones and accept the responsibility of dying for this country. If you have been able to fight on a battlefield and become a veteran, you still have taken that oath and you were willing to die for this country.

With the enormous cuts that are facing our soldiers, our families in this military construction legislation, let me make it plain for my colleagues. They will deny those who take an oath, Active Duty, their families, job opportunities. They will deny them housing.

Has anyone been to bases and seen some of the military housing that needs absolute either rebuild or rehab?

Have you understood the importance of food assistance, particularly to veterans' families depending on that?

Do they know how important it is for the soldiers to feed their families, to keep roofs over their heads?

Do they know how important it is to provide education and training opportunities for those who leave the United States military?

Let me remind you of the importance of their oath, and then let me remind you of the hard-earned work that this Congress did with President Biden to provide the PACT Act. The proposed cuts would have drastic consequences for the PACT Act. That is the bill that recognizes the toxicity that our brave men and women were in while they were fighting battles. That exposure fund could lead to slashing the medical care resources in the fund by 86 percent and fully abandoning the toxic exposure fund next year.

Are we defaulting on our commitment to those who took the oath to die for this Nation? I think that is worthy of shame.

Cities will be vulnerable when their veterans do not have the resources that are necessary for them to have.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the burden on local cities?

Our veterans are homeless. Our veterans are suffering, many times from PTSD, and if we do not have the kind of support services for them that this legislation provides, where are we in terms of the kind of housing and other assistance that they may need?

I just simply ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we stand here on the floor, I am fighting for the cities and the States that receive these dollars ultimately, because that is where the people are.

I do want to oppose the bills that are endangering our endangered species, S.J. Res. 9 and H.R. 4366. I oppose endangering our endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 4366, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.

This is a bill that appropriates funding for our military, the Department of Veteran Affairs, and other related agencies for fiscal year 2024.

I strongly oppose this bill's realignment of military construction funding from priority projects to other less relevant projects.

The level of funding allocations in this bill does not help the Veteran Affairs to support key priorities of its Administration such as ending veteran homelessness, increasing access to mental healthcare, and providing suicide prevention services, as well as investments in other critical areas, including caregiver support programs, overdose prevention, and treatment programs.

While it is important to make annual adjustments to bills such as this, our national strategic planning cannot be based on vague predictions; it must present a concrete plan that goes beyond the current year.

This Congress, and other relevant elements of the U.S. government should focus on a real integrated strategy that considers all aspects of national security spending while also helping to protect our veterans.

Any reckless policies that attempt to claw back billions in funding for veterans' medical care would have negative impact on our veterans and put their healthcare in jeopardy.

This bill should reflect efforts by the Congress to secure protection for adequate funding to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be able to continue to spend those essential resources for veterans' medical care.

Doubling down on the Default on America Act by cutting over $142 billion in funding does nothing but hurts our veterans, farmers, and their families by denying them access vital programs that they rely on.

Surprisingly, Republicans do not want to end there; recent reports indicate that they want to go up to over $159 billion in funding cuts, and even as high as $189 billion with their insatiable desire for drastic cuts in funding for programs that support American families.

Republicans need to stand by their word and let this House and the American people know where they stand on their support for veterans.

Any radical cuts in funding by Republicans to the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be devastating to more than 50,000 veterans who rely on the Housing Choice Vouchers for their housing needs.

Cutting funding to the Department of Labor by as high as 30 percent would result in more than 4,200 veterans losing the job training, counseling, and job readiness services they so desperately need; a group that is already either experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Earlier versions of Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that Republicans supported in subcommittee provided for the transfer of $4.5 billion in critical funding for veterans' medical care to other purposes.

The Republican-backed bill, if passed, could have resulted in drastic cuts to dedicated funding for veterans exposed to Agent Orange, burn pits, and other toxic substances.

Republican proposed cuts would have drastic consequences for the PACT Act Toxic Exposures Fund and could lead to slashing the medical care resources in the Fund by 86 percent, and fully abandoning the Toxic Exposures Fund next year.

I, along with my Democrat colleagues, will continue to work with veterans' organizations to ensure that this bill does not pass with these unreasonable cuts to critical programs and services that veterans across the country depend on.

Congress cannot renege on the pledge and promises that are contained in the PACT Act; to provide the necessary, dedicated, funding; this bill requires nothing short of full funding for the Toxic Exposures Fund.

Even with all these necessary measures, the 2024 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill still

falls short of our commitment to veterans, servicemembers, and their families.

This Committee should not pass a bill that cuts military construction by billions of dollars in effort to cut down on the entire process of funding the government.

Through the PACT Act, the Biden administration continue to deliver its promise to better serve and better take care of our veterans of all wars who have been exposed to harmful chemicals like Agent Orange, burn pits, and other toxic substances.

That funding for toxic exposures should not have to compete with other discretionary priorities; it should complement other funding sources.

In addition to these drastic cuts, Section 258 of H.R. 4366 would prevent the VA from using funds to implement, administer, or carry out the Interim Final Rule (IFR) published on September 9, 2022, which expanded access to abortion for certain veterans, a provision which also prevents the VA from providing needed care to veterans when the health of the woman is endangered.

Our country must ensure that the department of Veteran Affairs is able to provide access to abortions, especially in instances where the life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, or when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Sections 414, 415, and 417 of this H.R. 4366 further outline provisions that seek to limit efforts by the Federal Government to implement a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty, inequality, and diversity.

In its current state, this bill would prevent the Veteran Affairs from using funds to display any but the listed flags, intended to prevent the Veteran Affairs from displaying flags demonstrating support for historically marginalized groups such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex veterans.

This would indiscriminately undermine same sex marriage while also unduly complicating the routine business of the Department to provide healthcare and other services for veterans.

The President's budget proposal presents a viable solution to provide desperately needed funding for construction projects and the military construction bill must prove to support the President's commitments to our veterans.

Any real, pragmatic progress in Veteran Affairs' infrastructure backlog requires dedicated investment in our facilities outside the normal discretionary funding streams.

It is my sincere hope that this military construction appropriation would ensure the quality of care at Veteran Affair's facilities for our veterans and Veteran Affairs employees.

As our military leadership has indicated, 30 percent of our military infrastructure worldwide remains in poor condition; cutting funding for military construction is not a viable solution to this problem.

With the present need to address recruitment and retention problem that currently faces our military, and to ensure a major quality of life issue for our servicemembers, we cannot afford these senseless cuts to military construction funding.

I cannot support the passage of this military construction bill because our nation cannot to backtrack on our commitment to our servicemembers and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 9, a resolution that provides for congressional disapproval to legislatively de-list the lesser prairie-chicken from protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Specifically, this bill calls on Congress to disapprove the rules submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to protections for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.

The population and habitat of the lesser prairie-chicken, an endangered southwestern prairie grouse, is under growing threat.

Originally numbering in the millions, the population of this bird has decreased by as much as 97%, and it now only inhabits 16% of its former habitat.

Aerial survey results from 2012 through 2022 estimate a 5-year average lesser prairie-chicken population of 32,210 across the five- state region in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, as well as my state of Texas.

The conversion of natural grasslands to agriculture, energy development, fire suppression, drought, and the use of herbicides to kill Shinnery Oak habitat are all ongoing challenges that cause habitat loss and fragmentation.

Additional harm is caused to these birds' habitats by fencing, power wires, and other tall structures that entice perching by predatory animals.

The lesser prairie-chicken is a sign of healthy prairies and grasslands because it requires huge, undamaged natural grassland parcels to support self-sustaining populations.

This makes them a crucial indicator of the general well-being of America's grasslands, a treasured and iconic terrain.

It is essential that we work together to uphold the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is responsible for the recovery of iconic species like the bald eagle.

I urge my colleagues to support science-based decisions and join me in opposing this bill, S.J. Res. 9.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 24, which relates to the endangered species status of the Northern Long-Eared Bat.

S.J. Res. 24 is a resolution of congressional disapproval to legislatively down-list the Northern Long-Eared Bat from ``endangered'' to ``threatened.''

Not only would this downgrade the Northern Long-Eared Bat's status today, but it would effectively block the species from being moved up to a higher endangered threat level, no matter how close the species comes to extinction.

It would be irresponsible to use extreme legislation, not science, to down-list the Northern Long-Eared Bat, thereby effectively scaling back its protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Without ESA protections, states, industries, and other entities will have little incentive to conserve or recover the Northern Long-Eared Bat.

It is highly likely that the bat populations would likely dwindle further towards extinction.

Moreover, by using the Congressional Review Act Process, this Congress is effectively limiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from making similar future listings for this bat species.

This move would prevent the agency from using its discretion to take the necessary measures for species conservation and will impede long term recovery efforts.

Ultimately, Congressional action in this arena gives industries, not science, the upper hand in species listings.

It is clear that some of my colleagues are doing the bidding of the timber and agriculture industries, despite the consequences that Northern Long-Eared Bat extinction could have on biodiversity and long- term agriculture and timber industry practices.

Down-listing this species would be especially dangerous in the current moment because the Northern Long-Eared Bat population is actively under threat from white nose syndrome, a deadly fungus that has caused a rapid decline in bat populations.

The Northern Long-Eared Bat's current endangered status provides adequate protections while wildlife scientists work to address the underlying causes of white-nose syndrome.

More broadly, Congress should not be interfering with the work of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under its Endangered Species Act authority.

Species populations are constantly fluctuating based on environmental factors, invasive species, climate change, and other emerging threats.

To remain up to date, the ESA requires periodic study and updates to ensure protections align with the best available science.

By blocking future up-listing decisions, using the Congressional Review Act undercuts the ESA's inherent flexibility and agencies' science-based decision-making for species conservation.

I urge my colleagues to support science-based decisions for endangered and threatened species and oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended by striking the last sentence in the first section of the resolution and insert ``All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 614 provides for consideration of three measures: H.R. 4366, S.J. Res. 9, and S.J. Res. 24.

The rule provides for H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2024 to be considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order 41 amendments.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration S.J. Res. 9, a resolution of congressional disapproval related to the lesser prairie- chicken under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees, and provides one motion to commit.

Finally, the resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 24, a resolution of congressional disapproval related to the northern long- eared bat under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees, and provides one motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4366 fulfills our commitment to America's veterans by fully funding their healthcare programs and benefits, providing robust funding for mental health services, and rejecting the Biden administration's efforts to insert far-left policies into the VA.

As a Navy veteran, I am proud that this bill improves the quality of life for servicemembers by investing more than $17.6 billion in military construction and family housing for our heroes.

This includes critical investments in childcare development centers, upgrades to barrack housing, and billions to counter China in the Indo- Pacific.

Additionally, H.R. 4366 includes a provision prohibiting the closure of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and also prohibiting the use of funds to build detainee facilities on U.S. soil.

As a veteran of the global war on terror and someone who prosecuted terrorists in the Iraqi court system, I saw firsthand the destruction and chaos caused by these radical extremists. Bringing these terrorists to U.S. soil is unthinkable to me, and many of these terrorists were directly involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation also provides important congressional oversight of the Biden administration.

S.J. Res. 9 and S.J. Res. 24 utilize the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Department of the Interior's rules related to the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

In both instances, bureaucrats from the Biden administration are placing red tape on economic development and private land use, and without warrant. These rules expose farmers to litigation and lawsuits for routine farming activities, shut down existing conservation efforts from private industry, and impose new restrictions on farmers and ranchers.

This is just another example, another instance, of far-left, extreme Democrats in Washington, D.C., making it more costly for Americans to make a living, put food on the table, and develop our rural communities.

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

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

Let's just go back and look at what has been said over the last few months. For the last few months, the administration and extreme congressional Democrats have been spreading lies that House Republicans were cutting veterans benefits. These lies were merely designed to score cheap political points at the expense of our veterans.

Let's go through a few of the quotes from extreme Democrats.

President Biden stated in May: ``Republicans in Congress proposed budget cuts that would threaten veterans housing services, medical care, and mental health care.''

It didn't stop there. Ranking Member Takano stated, on April 26, they are holding veterans benefits ``hostage, again pointing to concerns about fiscal responsibility.''

In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Schumer stated, on March 1: ``Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans and cut VA mandatory funding.''

Now we get to this week, when House Republicans will pass a bill that will fully fund veterans benefits, fully fund veterans healthcare, and fully fund all other veterans programs. This bill provides the VA $16.4 billion over the fiscal year 2023 enacted level and matches the President's budget request for fiscal year 2024.

There is no question who was and who was not misleading the American people. There is no question that our actions today support veterans. Just watch to see how many of those Democrats will vote ``no'' tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend and a member of the House Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing the Department of the Interior's out-of-touch rulemaking decisions this week, let's talk about last week with the Department of the Interior. The Department proposed a new rule adding barriers to the future of energy production. This decision will drastically impact oil and gas investments and will raise energy costs for hardworking Americans.

Let's not forget that under the Trump administration, our Nation was energy independent, and this rulemaking will only deepen our reliance on foreign adversaries for energy.

According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 88 percent of Americans believe we should produce oil and gas here in the United States, and 85 percent agree domestic energy production counters China and Russia. Again, that is 85 percent. In addition, 88 percent believe that domestic energy production will help lower costs for families. That is 88 percent. These seem to me like pretty overwhelming numbers.

However, we have a bunch of unelected, career bureaucrats who are accountable to no one who are making these decisions. It is clear that Biden's Department of the Interior rulemaking continues to hurt our national security, our economy, and our energy independence, not to mention how wildly out of step this administration is with the American people. It is time that extreme Democrats stop the war on American energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing, I guess if you say something to knock people, you just assume they are going to think it is true.

Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about the numbers. This bill provides the VA $16.4 billion above FY23 levels. We are over the levels the Democrats passed last year. We are actually at the levels that the President wanted, that he put in his budget request for FY24. We are fully funding the VA.

My crystal ball is broken today, but I am willing to bet that every single Democrat will vote ``no'' on this bill which, again, fully funds the VA and all the programs that they are talking about. Let's just see where they vote tomorrow. It is quite amazing.

The talk about DEI in the military, under the Biden administration DEI created a recruiting and retention crisis without any reason for doing this, and that has weakened our military readiness. I was in the Navy. I lived through this.

I can tell you that DEI and CRT are plummeting our recruitment numbers. For what? From 2015 to 2020, the Army went on a witch hunt. The Army reported 21 of roughly a million soldiers were subject to disciplinary actions due to participation in extremist organizations. That was in 2020, they said a million soldiers were involved in this.

In 2021, the DOD did a study on that, and it reported that less than 100 of the over 2 million servicemembers actually participated in prohibited activity. For those of you without a calculator, that is roughly 0.00005 percent. That is what we are fighting over here.

The underlying legislation we are talking about actually eliminates wasteful spending for DEI and CRT, and puts it where we need it, in veterans' programs and military construction. It also does a lot to reverse the negative impact on military readiness and what is driving down our recruitment--just one of the many things that is driving down our recruitment.

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

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

We can sit here and talk about the numbers all day because the Republicans, we have actually increased military construction $800 million over what President Biden requested in his budget. We are $800 million over what the President wanted.

Where are we using that money? Well, we are using it in places like the South Pacific. Today, China is the global leader in human rights abuses.

In 2021, the Trump administration determined that the CCP is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. In the South China Sea, China is militarizing disputed territory and growing their malign influence.

In 2020, let's not forget that China ended Hong Kong's longstanding autonomy and a democracy came crashing down.

In 2019, a manmade virus escaped from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, killing tens of millions around the world. In the near future, the CCP plans to invade our ally, the free and independent democracy of Taiwan.

That is why I support the underlying legislation which focuses investment in the Pacific theater by providing $1.425 billion for infrastructure related to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and $131 million for U.S. INDOPACOM. That is the Indo-Pacific Command.

Again, think about those numbers. Think about combating China and their malign influences. When the Democrats sit here and say they are going to vote against this bill, they are voting against strengthening our Pacific theater against the malign influence of the CCP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I am prepared to close.

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

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

I thank my good friend from Colorado for the spirited debate. I always enjoy it.

We are here today because the Biden administration wants to tell the American people what they can do, how they can live. They want to tell you what kind of car you have to drive. They want to tell you what kind of stove that you can buy. They want to tell you what kind of energy you can use to heat your home.

Now, under these Department of the Interior rules, Biden bureaucrats want to place further burdens on our farmers and ranchers, our rural communities, and economic development and on public and private land.

Instead of focusing on the lesser prairie-chicken and the long-eared bat, maybe the Department should focus on securing our domestic energy supply chains and supporting American energy independence. Maybe that is the real purpose of why we are here talking about these issues, to force this Department to actually focus on what matters to American security and the American economy.

I urge my colleagues to send that message to the Biden administration and support the underlying legislation.

Additionally, as a Navy veteran, I support the underlying legislation that fulfills our commitments to America's veterans, our servicemembers, and their families.

Let's not forget that this MILCON-VA bill is $800 million for military construction over what President Biden requested in his budget request for FY24. It is also at the President's requested level of FY24. Maybe instead of attacking these numbers, my Democratic colleagues should be attacking their far-left Democratic President who wanted numbers below what the Republicans wrote for these numbers, and, again, we are fully funding Biden's requested VA numbers.

It is simple that a ``no'' vote on this is a vote against our veterans, and that is absolutely horrifying. Our country has sent generations of heroes around the globe to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of others. It is essential that we now take care of those who took care of us.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills. The first of those bills is H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, this is typically a bipartisan bill, one of the most bipartisan bills that we consider in the United States Congress. That is not the case this year. Why? Because House Republicans decided to inject into this bill extreme policy riders that threaten the freedoms of each and every American. They have kicked off appropriations season by doubling down on funding bills that endanger essential services.

Just to speak frankly, neither this bill nor any of the others that they will bring to the floor on the appropriations

side have any chance of becoming law. My colleagues across the aisle know that.

Today, they come to the floor to proudly tout a bill that would slash $1.3 billion--not my number; their number--from military construction programs that support quality-of-life services for members of the Armed Forces and their families.

Democrats fight against cuts to vital programs that help the American people. Unfortunately, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

We saw this cycle many times, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the last 7 months, it has been hard to understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.

At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted for a House rules package that promised an open rules process for amendments. Yet, here we are, debating another rule structured by Speaker McCarthy and Republican leadership.

Now, House Republicans threaten to shut down the government in order to fulfill an unpopular agenda full of far-right policy riders that undermine equal opportunity, restrict access to abortion, and more.

We are going to hear a lot from my colleague, my friend on the other side of the aisle, about what he claims this bill will do. It is important for the American people to understand three simple things.

It cuts military construction by $1.3 billion. Think about the impact that will have, Mr. Speaker, on servicemembers across the country.

It funds no infrastructure backlog for the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, we have a $100 billion infrastructure backlog in the Department of Defense for installations across the world, across the country, and in our districts. The President asked for $2 billion to start to address that backlog. House Republicans said no. How much did they give? Zero.

Finally, the bill does nothing to address toxic PFAS contamination-- not a thing. Last year, House Democrats, under President Biden's leadership, appropriated $200 million toward PFAS remediation to address the toxic chemicals that are literally killing people across the country. This bill appropriates how much? None.

Those are the facts.

If that weren't enough, as the gentleman said, we are considering two other bills today. The American people watching this might think that perhaps House Republicans would decide to bring a bill to the floor to lower costs, address inflation, try to reduce the cost of healthcare, grow the middle class, build safer communities, or address school safety. No. House Republicans have declined to put any of those bills on the floor. Instead, what are we left with? Hearings and bills on gas stoves and, today, bills on the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat. That is what we are here to debate, Mr. Speaker.

I think the American people would be deeply disappointed at the choice of priorities that House Republicans are pursuing. Let's get back to the core issues at hand. Let's negotiate in good faith. Let's do the people's business.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that only in Washington can politicians demand recognition after being shamed into doing the right thing. That is what we just heard.

We all know that the default on America act that House Republicans pursued was primed to cut veterans benefits. House Democrats, President Biden, and Senate Democrats led the charge to convince our colleagues to come back from the brink, and now they have the audacity to demand that we thank them for it.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this comes from the same party that overwhelmingly voted against the Honoring our PACT Act, the most comprehensive healthcare legislation for veterans in my lifetime, the proudest vote I have taken since I was sworn into the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, 174 of them voted against it, including the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now they have the audacity to claim that they are fighting for veterans?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, I understand it is a little empty on the other side of the aisle. There are perhaps not many Members who want to come to the floor to defend the propriety of this bill that cuts military construction funding, and I don't blame them.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), whom I respect, has the unenviable task of trying to make the case for a bill that cuts military construction funding, does nothing to address the infrastructure backlog, and cuts PFAS toxic exposure remediation, to say nothing of the many other ills within the legislation.

We heard a lot earlier about the supposed work that House Republicans are doing on the appropriations front. Of course, this is the first appropriations bill that has come to the floor. However, we still can't get House Republicans to commit to protecting Social Security and Medicare, as House Democrats have championed. Of course, we know why. It is because they have been unabashed about their efforts to cut both vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that we have offered before to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which unambiguously states that it is the House's duty to keep our solemn promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and reject any cuts to these critical programs.

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten) to discuss our very important proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about facts. Again, these are not my numbers. These are their numbers. This year in this bill, House Republicans appropriate $17.5 billion for military construction. That is $1.5 billion less than the current level. In other words, it is a decrease. It is a cut of $1.5 billion to military construction, which is used for housing for our servicemembers.

Under current levels, there is $200 million dedicated to PFAS remediation. In this bill, there is none.

President Biden requested $2 billion to address the infrastructure backlog in our military. Under this bill, there is none.

These are not my numbers. These are their numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Hill today titled: ``Senate GOP fears House actions could lead to shutdown: It's going to be a problem.''

Mr. Speaker, that article is quoting a Republican Senator from the gentleman's region, his neighbor, Senator Shelley Moore Capito.

When House Republicans shut down the government in 66 days, which they seem committed to doing, the American people will be right to ask the question, they will be justified to ask the question of why House Republicans decided to focus their time on the northern long-eared bat and the lesser prairie-chicken. It is a fair question for the American people to ask.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Again it feels like Ground Hog Day. Again, I have great respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but I don't understand what numbers he is looking at.

Does he deny that in statute we appropriated last year $19 billion for military construction?

He is an appropriator. I am happy to engage in a colloquy with him to the extent that he wishes to clarify that.

Last year, military construction was funded at $19 billion. This year, it is funded at $17.5 billion. Not complicated, and, of course, the gentleman knows that because half of his caucus is bragging about the fact that they have cut military construction and a variety of other programs, juxtaposed against the levels that were set by Congressional Democrats.

This is not disputed anywhere but apparently during this particular debate. They are cutting military construction. They are not funding military infrastructure backlog needs that the President has requested of this Congress; and they have zeroed out any dedicated funding for PFAS remediation. Those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

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

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

Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for the respectful debate. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on the bills that this House will unfortunately be considering this week but, nonetheless, I appreciate his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, today marks 200 days since House Republicans gaveled us into this 118th Session of the United States Congress; 200 days that they have been in control; 200 days that they have had the gavels here in Washington, D.C.

The American people would be justified in asking how have House Republicans spent those 200 days. Any bills to address inflation, to lower costs for working families, any bills to grow the middle class, to build safer communities? The answer is none.

Instead, they have pursued extreme policy after extreme policy, and this MILCON appropriation bill is no exception. Gas stoves, the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and whatever other issue House Republicans conjure up when we are back in session, that is how they have chosen to spend their time and taxpayer dollars.

When House Democrats were in control, working with President Biden and our colleagues in the upper Chamber, we focused on issues that mattered to the American people:

A bipartisan infrastructure law that, unfortunately, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber voted against that is rebuilding bridges and roads and highways across this country from Pennsylvania to Colorado, ensuring folks have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe;

The PACT Act, the most comprehensive veterans' healthcare legislation enacted in my lifetime, that 174 Republicans in this Chamber voted against;

The Inflation Reduction Act, capping insulin costs at $35 for seniors participating in Medicare across the country. That is how we spent our time.

As I said earlier, we know that in 66 days, House Republicans will shut down the government. They are telegraphing that. Many of their Members have said publicly that they want to shut down the government; that, in their view, a shutdown of the government is the desired outcome; 66 days.

Mr. Speaker, in 72 hours, Republicans will gavel this Chamber out of session. They will adjourn this Chamber for a 45-day recess.

Mr. Speaker, 66 days until the government runs out of funding, 45-day recess, 72 hours until that recess, and we are here debating the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

It is deeply disappointing, and it does not comport with how the American public expects us to operate here in Washington, D.C. We can do better, and I would challenge my Republican colleagues to come back from the brink that I described earlier, work with us in good faith. Help us deliver for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. If you support cutting military construction, if you support not addressing military infrastructure backlog, if you support zeroing out PFAS remediation then, by all means, vote for the MILCON bill. But if you oppose those draconian cuts, as I do, then I hope you will vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to acknowledge all the amazing women that serve in our Nation's military and the mothers that serve in our Nation's military.

But I will respond to something I heard a few minutes ago here, the pronouncement, the actual statement that abortion is women's healthcare.

I state for the record, abortion is not healthcare in any way. Abortion is the murder of the unborn child in a woman's womb. Abortion is defined as taking a life. It doesn't save a life. It kills a life.

Abortion methods are brutal, horrific, absolutely some of the worst things in today's times; ripping the limbs off an unborn baby, ripping its head off, killing it with chemicals inside of its mother's womb.

This is not something that taxpayers should have to ever pay for. This is something that honestly should not exist. Abortion is murder, and it is evil.

We should be supporting mothers in the military. We should be supporting women's actual healthcare, and that is not abortion.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask the House to support my amendment No. 3, which will cut the $73 million increase in funding for the NATO Security Investment Program. This is simply keeping the NATO funding at the same level as last year's appropriations level. I think this is very important.

The United States overwhelmingly contributes more than our fair share to NATO for Europe's defense, and it is time for European countries to pay their dues.

While our own border is overrun by border-crossers and deadly, poisonous fentanyl daily, we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars to NATO to defend Ukraine's democracy, even though they aren't even a NATO member nation.

Investing in NATO security is an America-last policy. All increases in funding should be investing in the United States of America's security and the defense of our own border.

President Trump was exactly right when he called on European nations to put the required minimum of 2 percent of their GDP toward NATO defense spending. Most NATO countries still don't meet that requirement, and the U.S. ends up paying for 70 percent of the alliance's defenses. This is outrageous. The American people do not like paying for other countries' defenses when our borders are overrun daily.

The current 2023 defense expenditure for NATO countries has the United States at $860 billion. The United States of America's military is not meant to be the world's police. As we find ourselves funding a war in Ukraine, when the United States' position should be pushing for peace, not paying for and not funding war and the death of innocent people, we should not increase our spending and increase the amount of funding by $73 million more to the NATO Security Investment Program.

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps my colleagues are confused. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Ukraine has not been accepted into NATO. Why are they using defense of Ukraine for their argument for an additional $73 million increase for the NATO security investment program? That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to talk about national security, Mr. Chair, let's talk about the American people's national security. My colleague across the aisle speaks of hostile nations and how they present a clear danger to America's national security. Well, you have to look no further than the southern border. The southern border is where hostile nations are invading our country every single day with poisonous fentanyl, which is murdering over 300 Americans a day.

If there is going to be an increase in funding for the defense of any nation, it should be the United States of America's border in defense of American lives.

Mr. Chair, I would like to add, my position and the position of most Americans is peace, not funding the murder and death in continued foreign wars, defending other countries' democracies while completely ignoring our own.

Mr. Chair, I ask the House to pass my amendment that keeps the spending level at the same level it was this previous appropriations bill--the same level. An increase in $73 million is another step towards funding world war III.

It is another step in United States aggression over a country that is not even a member of NATO in the name of a NATO security investment program. This is absolute madness. It is outrageous.

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

May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I will wrap this up. It is very simple. We are at $32 trillion in debt. There is no need to increase spending over the level that it was last year. Americans are already spending $860 billion for NATO for the defense of other nations. There is no reason to increase it by $73 million.

My amendment is very simple: It is asking to keep the appropriations level the same as it was this past year.

Mr. Chair, I ask the House to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment asks the House to support striking the funding for the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion.

The Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion in the VA is charged with promoting woke DEI initiatives. My amendment would strike over $86 million of funding for this woke office which provides training for VA employees to teach them about their implicit bias.

Just for you to understand what implicit bias means, Mr. Chairman, because it was something I had to look up myself, implicit bias--this is ACORN--implicit bias refers to a person's unconscious attitudes about other communities that can affect their behavior to those members.

Unconscious attitudes? We are funding $86 million for people to be trained about things they feel that they don't know that they feel?

This makes absolutely no sense for the care of our great veterans.

Instead of spending millions of tax dollars on woke ideology, we should put that money toward making the VA

an agency that actually helps our heroes and our great veterans who served our military and our country and who desperately need good care.

When I am at home in my district and I speak to veterans there, that is what I hear them talk about to me constantly: is the care that they want to receive at the VA, but yet they are failed so many times?

Sick and injured veterans suffering with PTSD, depression, and mental illness and who are on the verge of suicide don't care if VA employees serving them have checked their White privilege. They just want to get the treatment that they need.

Just for some examples for the House to hear about the type of training that happens in this DEI department that is costing the American taxpayers $86 million, a few examples are managing gender diversity in the VA, managing implicit bias--remember those are feelings you don't know you have--valuing workforce diversity in the workplace inclusion; participating effective diversity and inclusion in the workplace for managers, supervisors, and team leaders; understanding micro behaviors in the VA work environment.

It is time to put $86 million to taking care of our veterans' healthcare needs. That is the right place to spend the money.

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

Mr. Chair, the great news for all of us here today is that the Constitution declared long ago that all of us are created equal. It is time that we started acknowledging that in all of our funding, in all of our departments, and all across America, and, as well, that our veterans are created equal. We don't have to spend $86 million on educating everyone on how different they are. It is time to start treating everyone equally.

As far as sexual harassment claims, private businesses all across the country are able to handle these without having special diversity, equity, and inclusion departments to handle sexual harassment. That is usually handled in human resources or among managers who can handle the situation.

Management has always been a problem in the VA. We do not need to fund $86 million creating a big, woke department that is actually already created. We should spend $86 million, again, toward helping our veterans. Our veterans have enough issues they face.

Not too long ago there was a tragic story in Georgia where one of our veterans committed suicide while waiting for the care in the waiting office at the VA. This should never ever happen.

This type of funding, $86 million, again, should not go towards educating people about gender and gender bias, educating people about their skin color, and educating people about how they think unconsciously without knowing how they think. These are the type of woke ideologies that divide and separate Americans and that veterans could care less about.

They care about the care that they will receive, they care about having their appointments, they care about their medical treatment, and they care about one another.

One of the things veterans care most about is the fact that they suffer with PTSD from all the foreign wars that they have been sent to and served in.

It is time we take better care of our veterans and stop dividing America with identity politics.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

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