Veterans' COLA Act of 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to kick people off of healthcare.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees charged to middle-income borrowers.

Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people back home who send us here to fight for them.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so they can go after immigrants once again.

We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.

Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.

Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about immigration.

Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.

Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S. citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just a fact.

Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.

Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection had an average of 3,700

encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a decrease of over 70 percent.

Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.

I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that this country stands for.

This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.

Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.

If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these people?

This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.

Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half since last summer.

Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs, and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working families.

Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13 million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.

Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war off our streets to protect America's kids.

Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search of a better life.

You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten, shameful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges that we face in this country. This is a joke.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.

I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is ridiculous.

We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.

By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching, means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money, no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure that they will not vote for any cuts.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal benefits.''

We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut things that are very meaningful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what they bring to the floor.

At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress, Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.

You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?

Six.

They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has any chance in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this place.

Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.

Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.

Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.

Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA. It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are just over the top and extreme.

Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are they doing?

They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it

across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.

By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources; nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we are here debating something like this when we could be debating something that might make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 have to say, what I am a little surprised about today is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the debt ceiling.

We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people. Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to the floor.

One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO says.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO score.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was added to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending asylum as we know it.

Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes. That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress, their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.

Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.

Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.

We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget with no questions asked.

They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all know why. Google where they all spend their money on political campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in particular, the most vulnerable in our country.

Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, where do they go?

They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor. That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have 13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?

Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational system better?

No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.

They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing to the floor.

Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?

No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on middle-class home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill does.

Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's access to affordable healthcare?

No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides quality coverage to millions.

There are very real issues that regular people in this country face every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.

This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.

I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst their base.

This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation and a ``no'' vote on this 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 524 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 524, providing for consideration of three measures: H. Res. 461, H.R. 3799, and H.R. 3564.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564 under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designee.

The rule makes in order four amendments and provides one motion to recommit. The rule additionally provides for consideration of H.R. 3799 under a structured rule with 80 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committees on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees and Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule makes in order three amendments and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 461 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled and by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bills.

Today, the Republican majority continues its long process of reversing and repairing the damages inflicted on the American people by the Biden administration and the previous Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, included in the rule is H.R. 3799, the Custom Health Option and Individual Care Expense Arrangement Act, or the CHOICE Arrangement Act, introduced by my friend from Oklahoma, Kevin Hern.

This legislation includes commonsense changes to help lower health insurance costs, increase competition in the healthcare market, and ensure access to high-quality, low-cost plans for Americans and small business owners and their employees.

In 2021, almost 55 percent of Americans were covered by employer- based health coverage. Employer-based health coverage is easily the most popular option for Americans to receive health insurance coverage. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, of small employers

that did not offer health insurance coverage to their employees, two- thirds reported that the reason they do not offer the health insurance is because it is simply too expensive.

In 2019, President Trump and his administration published regulations allowing employers to provide their employees with a fixed amount of money each year in tax-preferred individual health coverage reimbursement accounts that an employee could use to buy coverage in the individual market.

Current regulations allow employers to establish individual coverage health reimbursement accounts which employees can use to purchase individual market coverage and pay for their out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act seeks to codify these regulations to provide tax-advantaged funds for employees to buy portable health insurance plans and requires notification to employers of the availability of these tax-advantaged health insurance benefits.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act also includes provisions codifying the right of small businesses to band together and form association health plans to offer pooled health insurance coverage to their employees.

This legislation will give employers maximum flexibility in how they provide coverage options for their employees by providing CHOICE arrangements while also providing expected benefits like dental plans, vision plans, accident, disability benefits, and more.

This legislation will also ensure that stop-loss coverage is not subject to Federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. These commonsense changes will stop the Biden administration from administratively making healthcare more expensive by regulating stop-loss coverage and ensuring that small businesses can, in fact, remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this rule is H. Res. 461. This condemns the practice of retrofitting our children's schools to house illegal immigrants. President Biden and the Democrats' failures at the southern border are so comprehensive, so overwhelming that municipalities are now co-opting the schools where we educate our children because President Biden refuses to secure the southern border.

Because President Biden cannot or will not secure our southern border, Mr. Speaker, our local communities and municipalities are now casualties of President Biden's border crisis.

The American people rightfully demand that President Biden and Democrats in Congress acknowledge this crisis. They demand that they not only acknowledge the crisis, Mr. Speaker, they demand that their Federal Government solve this self-inflicted crisis that is pushing our communities well past the breaking point.

New York City and its mayor, Eric Adams, are the first to cry uncle. Mr. Speaker, 2 months is how long Mayor Adams and New York City lasted, suffering under conditions of a size and scale not even comparable to the conditions that Texans have been enduring these past 2\1/2\ years under an administration that has only now started to pay attention to this humanitarian crisis when it started to affect their constituents.

Over and over again, we have pleaded with the Biden administration to take this crisis seriously, only to be rebuffed time and again. This humanitarian catastrophe can be laid squarely at the feet of the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas, and, of course, President Biden who have chosen to do nothing rather than be labeled xenophobes by their progressive colleagues for actually enforcing existing immigration law and securing our southern border.

Mr. Speaker, the temptation for the Biden administration has been to bury their heads in the sand and hope that these waves of illegal immigrants coming across our border will, in fact, magically disappear. They will not, Mr. Speaker, not until President Biden finally gets serious about the border crisis by demanding that the Secretary of Homeland Security do his job and secure our southern border, or maybe find someone else who can do that job.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023. This bill would repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's recalibrated single-family pricing framework to guarantee mortgages which would charge borrowers with higher credit scores larger fees to subsidize borrowers with lower credit scores.

If not for our Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, one out of every two borrowers with higher credit scores would be assessed higher mortgage fees in President Biden's radical equity agenda.

President Biden is telling the American people that if you work hard, if you are responsible with your finances, if you pay your bills on time, you are going to get to subsidize the mortgages of those who did not make the same sacrifices that you did in order to attain a higher credit score. This sends a terrible message to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davidson for bringing us this final piece of legislation that underscores that the Republican majority stands with those middle-class families who have done the right thing and should not be pushed by a radical administration that is obsessed with radical wealth distribution schemes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable new member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only entity cutting Social Security or Medicare right now is the White House, the Biden administration. Over the last 2\1/2\ years, cuts to Medicare have totaled probably $40 billion in the part B drugs administered in physician's offices and $300 billion in Medicare Advantage, all done through the Inflation Reduction Act last year. The only people talking about cutting Medicare right now is the administration, and that is really what ought to be stopped.

Right now, that is not the business at hand. What we are discussing today are three important bills that are going to be considered on the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are hearings going on right now in the Energy and Commerce Committee for the reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act.

The SUPPORT Act passed in 2017-2018 in that Congress. It was a broadly bipartisan bill. It was geared toward dealing with the problems that were occurring in this country because of an opiate crisis.

Largely, the source of these opiates were prescription drugs that were diverted to other uses, and the consequence was people taking a good overdose and in fact dying from prescription drugs that were actually diverted from their intended use.

Five years later, we are in the process of reauthorizing the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act actually functioned as intended, it did reduce some of those overdose deaths downward until we were hit with the pandemic, and obviously that changed a lot of things.

In that 5-year interval, this disease has changed. It is no longer prescription opiates that are diverted, it is fentanyl. It is fentanyl that is poisoning our young people. It is fentanyl that is pouring in from the southern border.

Look, I get it. You want to say it is only coming in at the ports of entry--that is what you catch. Our Customs and Border Protection are so overwhelmed with the numbers of people who are coming in at the invitation of the President and the Vice President, people are pouring across our border.

Customs and Border Protection cannot do their normal job. They are doing housekeeping chores, taking care of people who are ill, children who are arriving at their doorstep, and they have no choice but to take care of them.

In the meantime, all other areas of the surveillance are non vis because Customs and Border Protection are tied up with this vast increase of humanity that is coming in. The bottom line is as we reauthorize the SUPPORT Act now, we are actually dealing with a different disease because fentanyl poisoning has replaced opiate overdose.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that thanks to House Republicans and their investigative efforts there was a settlement yesterday where a member of the President's family has agreed to pay his taxes that he hasn't been paying.

So that is a good thing that delivers money to the Treasury.

Oh, yes, about those background checks, it turns out a member of the President's family wasn't adhering to the background checks and the proper handling of a firearm.

So maybe we all learned something in that exchange over the last 24 hours.

I also want to correct a few things on the underlying bills. Association health plans, like all large employer plans, are required to cover preventative healthcare. This requirement includes covering women's preventative health services without cost sharing. In addition, all AHPs are required to cover pregnancy-related conditions and coverage of a minimal hospital stay after childbirth as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the plans to cover pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions in the same manner as they cover other medical conditions under the association health plan.

The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996--that was about 10 years before the ACA--the Health Protection Act of 1996 requires large group association health plans to cover a hospital stay of at least 48 hours for a childbirth and at least 96 hours for a birth by caesarean delivery.

These are all requirements placed on large group employer-sponsored health plans. Expanding AHPs does not change these requirements. What it changes is making that valuable insurance available to more employees.

The CBO score that the gentleman referenced also had within it the notation that 200,000 people would be covered if this bill, the CHOICE Act, is enacted because insurance would not be as expensive for employers to provide and would give them more possibilities.

Here is probably the crux of that matter: 40,000 of these people have no insurance currently. So there will be 40,000 people moved from uninsured to insured by passing the CHOICE Act. I would say that is a good thing, and I think people would be supportive of that.

I do want to stress that it is important to support the rule and the underlying measures. I thank my colleagues for their diligence and hard work in bringing these important pieces of legislation to the floor today. The Republican majority has demonstrated, yet again, that we are putting forward a legislative agenda that works for all Americans and not just the well-connected few.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss, again, a key constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. The Constitution lays this weighty task at the feet of Congress. We hold the purse strings, and today our task is to provide for sustained growth in the capacity and capability of our Armed Forces. For 30 years, we have lived off the military investments of the eighties and these investments have kept China and Russia and others from attacking us. They have kept us safe.

Today, those investments have largely expired, and both Beijing and Moscow are acting increasingly adversarial. In particular, China's military is growing so quickly that we will not long deter them unless we invest more in our military too. It will cost a lot to deter Beijing, but it will cost a lot more if we do not.

In February, I delivered a speech on our most dire national security challenge: preventing the Chinese aggression against Taiwan. Defending our security and prosperity means defending Taiwan. If the island falls, the global balance of power tilts for decades. Our children and grandchildren would then not live in an American-led 21st century.

Today, I will focus on the Chinese Communist Party's rapid military buildup and the U.S. ability to boost our military capability. I will show how both demand sustained real growth in our defense budget alongside increased reform and prioritization. Inexplicably, in the face of these facts, the President has proposed another military cut. Twice now, he has proposed cuts and twice Congress has replied with an emphatic and bipartisan no. Instead, Congress has added, over the last 2 fiscal years, $70 billion of targeted investments to our military to help us catch up with China. I am confident, on a bipartisan basis, again, we will do this for the next fiscal year.

Let's begin by outlining the rising threat of the Chinese Communist Party. As Congress considers this year's military spending commitments, we need to consider what we are up against. The U.S. military investment must counter Chinese military investment. If we do not, history may one day bestow on our moment--on this time--the ignominious title of a ``prewar period.'' I hope we are not in a prewar period. If we are prepared, there is a much greater chance that we can avoid a war in the future.

We know China intends to dominate the Pacific. They boast about it in public speeches, and they are building a military capable of turning their rhetoric into reality. We have debated what year we should be worried about. Some say 2023, 2025, 2027; some say 2035. Secretary Blinken says China wants to seize Taiwan on a much faster timeline than we have previously thought. The 2027 date, what some call the Davidson window, is based on Xi Jinping's orders to his military about when he expects them to be ready. We would all do well to remember that dictators start wars of aggression before their militaries are ready. Look no further than Germany and Japan in World War II and look at Putin's Russia today. If Putin's invasion of Ukraine taught us anything, it is that the plans of dictators are often driven as much by delusions of grandeur as by honest assessments of relative military capabilities. This is what makes the next few years so dangerous.

Last year, Xi Jinping fully consolidated his control over the Chinese Communist Party, beginning a historic third term which lasted through 2028 with very few restraints on his power, and it shows. As the People's Liberation Army grows more capable and the Chinese Communist Party faces growing domestic turmoil, Beijing may soon decide that its power is peaking. That may prompt them to act sooner rather than later.

China is certainly signaling a sinister intent. Last August, they concluded unprecedented military drills around Taiwan's most trafficked waterways and flight routes. They did so arguably to project strength in response to Nancy Pelosi's visit to the island, when she was then Speaker of the House. They build replicas of U.S. Navy ships, aircraft, and air defense systems, and they regularly practice striking these replicas.

Their military buildup is the strongest signal of their intent to dominate the Pacific. I, along with many other Senators, have seen the sobering classified reports, but the public picture is grim enough. The Chinese Communist Party just announced the expansion of its defense budget by 7.2 percent for this year, about six times the increase the Biden administration proposed. Beijing has increased its military spending every year for more than 20 years, and we know that they actually hide many portions of their defense budget. By simply looking at Beijing's quantitative and qualitative improvements, we see that Beijing spends freely on its military.

China has expanded its nuclear forces faster than anyone thought possible. Already, they have more ground-based nuclear weapon launchers than we do. This changes our entire nuclear readiness calculus. For seven decades, we focused on matching the Russian nuclear arsenal. But we experienced a new Sputnik moment when we watched the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle perform maneuvers we had never contemplated.

China has also rapidly expanded its conventional sea, air, and rocket forces.

Their Navy outnumbers ours. They will have more than 460 ships by 2030. U.S. naval intelligence indicates these ships may already be as high quality as our own. Yet our senior Navy leadership continues to underestimate Chinese capabilities. China's civilian fleet is expanding also, and the People's Liberation Army has used it in mock amphibious invasions--the civilian fleet.

The Chinese Air Force has shed its third-generation, Vietnam-era fighters and built an impressive fourth-generation fighter force. They are building fifth-generation fighters at scale today, just like we are. And their air-to-air missiles have greater range than U.S. missiles. China's air warfare training has advanced beyond anything we thought possible 5 years ago.

The Chinese rocket force points thousands of short-range ballistic missiles at Taiwan and hundreds of long-range missiles at U.S. bases in Japan, Guam, and elsewhere.

China has not restricted its advances to traditional military domains either. It is a major player on the cyber battlefield. Top U.S. cyber commander, General Nakasone, says the increase in Chinese cyber warfare capabilities has been unlike anything he has ever seen--unlike anything General Nakasone has ever seen. Earlier this year, our top nonmilitary cyber official told us the Chinese would combine an attack on Taiwan, if that occurs, with broad attacks on U.S. cyber infrastructure. And that certainly makes sense.

Beijing has also overtaken Russia in space. Russia is now the junior partner to communist China, not only in space communications and intelligence satellites, but also in space warfighting capabilities.

Finally, China is building a multinational syndicate of bad actor nations. Beijing envisions itself as the central character in an anti- U.S. coalition that includes junior partner Russia as well as North Korea. Xi Jinping took a significant step in that direction last week when he visited Vladimir Putin, a man he has described as his ``best, most intimate friend.'' As China's military rises, regrettably, the U.S. military treads water.

I will identify five areas of improvement to help our military catch China.

First, we have not focused nearly enough on honing our capabilities in a set of key areas we need to win. Our efforts to build a series of modern and flexible command-and-control networks are just now gaining steam. We still possess no relevant mine warfare capabilities. After three decades of neglect, we are just beginning to rebuild core competencies in electronic warfare. We have finally begun to build the right bases in the right locations in the Western Pacific. We have Senators Reed and Inhofe, the authors of last year's NDAA, to thank for that. I issue my thanks to this bipartisan team.

Our munitions industrial base is in woeful shape, and we have only begun to scratch the surface of our production capacity. I am pleased to see the Pentagon moving in the right direction, but it remains clear to me that Congress can take additional actions--should take additional actions this year to accelerate and expand production.

Secondly, we should rapidly work to expand our naval fleet. As I said, China's fleet has eclipsed ours, and yet the Department of Defense proposes ship decommissionings. The Marine Corps was unable to assist victims of the earthquakes in Turkey just a few months ago because the Navy lacked enough amphibious ships. Yet President Biden's budget proposes to end an entire amphibious ship production line--an entire production line. I do not believe this Congress will allow that to happen.

Our Navy Secretary recently noted that one Chinese shipyard--one Chinese shipyard--has more capacity than all of ours combined. For many years, we tried to wring more efficiency out of our shipbuilding industrial base, and for many years we have largely failed. Without a massive change in direction and an infusion of funds, we are unlikely to grow the fleet beyond 300 ships over the next decade. I would remind my colleagues that the statutory minimum requirement enacted by this Congress and signed by the President of the United States is 355 ships at a minimum. It is time for the U.S. Congress to lead the Nation in expanding the shipbuilding industrial base.

Third, our Reagan-era Air Force fleets grow older. For years, we have known we need to purchase 72 tactical aircraft each year to have a healthy fleet--72 each year. For years, we failed to do so. Our next- generation fighters are still nearly a decade away, as are significant numbers of autonomous wingmen for them. And the Air Force remains almost 2,000 pilots short this year.

Fourth, we are on the leading edge of a recruitment crisis. By the end of this year, the Army could be 40,000 soldiers smaller than it was just 18 months ago--40,000 soldiers short. Even as its missions continue to increase, the Navy and Air Force are not far behind. The recruiting crisis is a complex problem that will require a multifaceted solution. We had the Chief of Staff of the Army before the Armed Services Committee, along with the Secretary of the Army, just this morning to discuss this and other important issues. However, the budget can, right away, provide one solution. We should set aside funds for barracks and facility improvements. Potential recruits have frequently cited poor living conditions as one reason not to enlist.

Fifth, we must boost our defense infrastructure. Almost 2 years ago, I led an amendment on the infrastructure bill--not the Defense bill, the infrastructure bill--along with Senators Shelby and Inhofe, that would have devoted $50 billion to begin boosting this foundational infrastructure.

We never got a vote. Unfortunately, that amendment was blocked. Our shipyards, military family housing, hypersonic test ranges, ammo plants, and other sites are key in enabling our military to be ready and capable.

Perhaps such an amendment would pass today with broad bipartisan support. The facts certainly call for it.

And, finally, we must link increased investment with accelerated reform in the Pentagon. The Department of Defense's audit championed by former Deputy Secretary David Norquist progressed more in the last 5 years than in the last 25 years before that.

The Marines may become the first service to earn a clean financial bill of health this year. That is good news.

Deputy Secretary Hicks has also embraced and accelerated efforts begun by Deputy Secretary Norquist to bring 21st century data-driven management practices to DOD. This work has already saved us tens of billions of dollars.

Congress will continue to lead and partner with the Pentagon in ongoing and new reform efforts. This year, experts with the Pentagon budgeting commission will help Congress to innovate more quickly and improve the relationship between Congress and the Department of Defense.

I also believe the Office of Strategic Capital will help us partner with American private capital. American capital is an advantage we have. Yet we do not leverage it often enough in the national security space. The Office of Strategic Capital can help diversify our defense industrial base to compete with the People's Republic of China in a cost-effective manner.

Cost-saving measures, though necessary, will not be enough. Counterintuitively, many reforms cost money up front. Senator Inhofe, my predecessor, as ranking member of the committee, was correct when he said: We cannot spend our way out of the challenges we face, but we can spend too little to give ourselves a chance.

The United States has not faced national security challenges of this scale, scope, and complexity since World War II. This moment is a fork in the road. Neither the peace we have enjoyed nor the war some predict are inevitable. Decisions we make will determine whether that occurs.

Effective deterrence will be a complex operation, but its starting place is simple: We must, once again, for the third year, increase the military budget.

And, as we grow the budget, we will save where we can, prioritize the most effective purchases, and share the load with our allies and partners and insist that they do their share.

Again, it would cost a lot to deter China, but it will cost a lot more if we do not.

Mr. President, earlier this week, myself, Senator Cassidy, and Senator Cornyn, along with 35 of our Republican colleagues, introduced an effort to block President Biden's plan to transfer student loan debt onto the back of hard-working Americans. This includes ending the pause on student loan payments, which has been extended six times since the start of the pandemic.

What might seem like a ``free pass'' in making payments on student loans is, actually, a scheme orchestrated by the Biden administration that could cost taxpayers an estimated $900 billion.

Let's break it down: $400 billion to cancel student loan debt, $195 billion to pause loan payments and interest accrued during the pandemic, and $200 billion to implement President Biden's loan repayment rule.

Folks, $900 billion is more than the Federal Government has ever spent on higher education in our Nation's history. To give you some additional perspective, this radical proposal costs--get this, folks-- three times more than what the government will spend on Pell grants in this decade--in this decade--a program designed to help our neediest students.

This is not debt cancellation. It is socialism.

President Biden is rewarding those who chose the path of higher education by strapping their debt onto the backs of those who did not.

This is a personal issue to me.

My brother chose to enter the workforce directly out of high school. My brother is a hard-working union laborer.

My sister worked to put herself through community college. She received an associate's degree in Southwest Iowa. She works for a trucking company and farms.

Their stories are similar to many Iowans across my home State. Why should countless Americans who made responsible, financial planning decisions be forced to take on the debts of others?

Biden's plan is unfair and unaffordable. It is fanning the flames of inflation and is a driving factor in our growing Federal debt. Most importantly, this transfer of student loan debt does nothing to address and may actually be contributing to the real issue of rising costs to attend college.

What message does this send to veterans who pursue higher education through the GI bill or medical professionals who joined the National Health Service Corps?

I was able to cover a portion of my college tuition at Iowa State University through an ROTC scholarship. Joining the Army after graduation was a privilege and an honor. I made a commitment to my country, and, in return, they made a commitment to me to help me receive my college degree.

President Biden's radical proposal invalidates many other successful loan forgiveness and repayment programs designed to incentivize participation in critical fields, including the military, public service, and medicine.

Instead of putting a bandaid on the problem and passing the buck, we should be giving students and their families a clear picture up front about the true costs associated with their education. That is why I am working in a bipartisan way to ensure that students know, before they take out a loan, the estimated total interest amount based on their repayment plan.

Folks, we have warned for years that the left is on the march toward socialism. Look no further than Biden's student debt transfer plan.

I am proud to join my Republican colleagues in working to stop this scheme.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the ranking member; Mr. Bost; my good friend from Texas; the ranking member, the gentleman from New Hampshire; and, of course, in the other body, Senator Tester for a very instructive and important initiative dealing with the cost of living for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues are embraced and engaged with veterans--which many of us do every time we are home in the district-- they realize that they, in many instances, continue their service in the kinds of work that they do. Realize, however, that they have any number of additional challenges in many instances. That, of course, includes some of the health issues, housing issues, and ability-to- support-family issues.

The cost of living is, in essence, something that we should make as a commitment for the service that they have given.

I know that we often say thank you for your service, and we often have a smile on our face. I want it to be well known, well known, that it is by our action and our deeds, not just by our words.

The veterans that we see across our districts and across America have fought in many wars. Many of them believe that they have not been given the full amount of their veteran benefits.

They believe that they are still trying to petition for a level of disability, if you will. Some are at a certain percentage and feel that they deserve another percentage because they are in a financial condition that causes them to wonder about their service and their service-connected disability. We get all of those questions.

I think the overall statement that has been made about the cost of living is to recognize the difficulty our veterans have, the increasing amount of moneys that it requires for us to take care of our veterans, and that this is a responsible and respectable way of doing so.

I hope that we will pass this quickly. I hope that it will go to the President's desk. I hope that when we see our veterans, we will be able to be an exhibitor of deeds, that we stood on the floor of the House to say thank you.

We stood on the floor of the House to say we recognize the needs that you have from the veterans hospitals, veterans clinics, and certainly for the need of increased compensation.

This is an important statement not only for veterans but for their families.

It is an important statement for the young men and women who put on the uniform today unselfishly.

They will ultimately be veterans, and we hope that they will be able to serve, and they will be able to come out as veterans.

Please be reminded as we celebrate Memorial Day there are those who put on the uniform unselfishly, and they never made it home.

We want to be able to honor those, but as well, we want to honor living veterans. I support this legislation that provides for a veterans COLA of 2023.