Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
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…
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.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
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 demand a recorded vote.
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, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
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.
Madam Chair, I think it is important to point out that the new motto still is reflective of President Lincoln's beliefs, and his promise is one that was developed after surveying veterans who receive care from the VA and their employees.
Perhaps we should listen to the veterans who are served by the VA and the people who work with them every single day about the need for a more inclusive motto. The more inclusive motto says, ``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,'' making sure that the motto of the VA ensures that all patients who are served there, all employees who work there, all the surviving families who interact with the VA every single day understand that the motto applies to them and the more outdated motto that dates back to President Lincoln's time is no longer reflective of who is served at the VA.
This is 2023. It is hard to imagine that we are actually debating a motto on the floor of the House of Representatives and have a Member of Congress suggesting that that motto should remain exclusive of women instead of ensuring, as the motto voted on as a result of the surveys of VA employees and VA patients, is more reflective of who the VA treats today.
Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Despite the wildfires, smoke-covered skies, life-threatening heat waves, and extreme weather we now face nearly every day in the United States, this amendment would hamstring our ability to address the accelerating threat of climate change.
The scientific consensus is clear, and we need to get serious about preventing further damage by transitioning to clean energy sources while also working to mitigate the costs we already bear today.
The Department of Defense has repeatedly recognized that climate change is a direct threat to the U.S. military's readiness, mission effectiveness, and resilience. From rising sea levels that can flood coastal installations to more frequent extreme weather events that can damage our military infrastructure, these climate-related effects put our security at risk.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the news. Just yesterday, the news reported that the ocean temperature in south Florida was more than 100 degrees yesterday, 101.1 degrees to be specific, in Everglades National Park in Manatee Bay.
Do you know what happens at temperatures like that? At temperatures like that, we start seeing massive coral bleaching. Coral bleaching, high temperatures, sea level rise are not someday things in Florida. They are right now things.
In 2018, a Category 5 hurricane devastated Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, necessitating billions of dollars to repair and rebuild. We can only mitigate against those costly scenarios if we can acknowledge that the changing climate and increasing extremes we must adapt to are real.
Further, climate change directly impacts the health of our most vulnerable veterans. Increases in extreme heat, extreme weather events, and disease pose a threat to those who have served, particularly those who are older or who have preexisting conditions and those who have respiratory conditions, which often older veterans do.
The policies targeted in this amendment provide a path to help us future-proof our military, incorporate climate risk analysis into military planning, enhance our energy security, address the health effects of climate change, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
The gentleman from Texas might want to wish away or amend away global warming and climate change and its effects, but that simply isn't possible. This amendment would result in leaving our military woefully unprepared and our Nation on a path toward climate catastrophe in decades to come.
Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, it is astonishing to me that our friends on the other side of the aisle are fossil fuel warriors. I mean, that is what this is all about. This is about Big Oil and fossil fuel supporters and making sure that the coffers continue to be filled.
It is absolutely irresponsible. It is essential that we make sure that we are preparing and aggressively pursuing and making sure that we can stave off and mitigate the effects of global warming and climate change. These are not risks that are somewhere in the distant future. They are happening right now.
Madam Chair, in my own district, in neighborhoods in south Florida, during the king tides in particular, you have sunny day flooding because the sea level rise is nearly unstoppable at this point. That is costing us precious resources that we should be spending on other quality-of-life issues. Yet, the gentleman's amendment would further prevent us from being able to mitigate the effects of global warming and climate change. It is dangerous.
In particular, as it relates to our military, it puts our national security at risk and the health of our servicemembers at risk. We need to make sure that we can continue to aggressively pursue protecting our national security interests, which is why, on both sides, no matter who is in charge of the Department of Defense, the Department continues to pursue policies that will ensure that we can mitigate against global warming and climate change. They understand the risk to our servicemembers and to our safety.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, this executive order is a whole- of-government approach for addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to clean energy and sustainable technologies. It ensures that we set responsible targets for how we invest our Federal dollars to incentivize the private sector to expand on these technologies, and it creates unionized jobs.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires across this Nation. We are seeing the impacts of climate change in real time.
In south Florida, like I mentioned earlier, yesterday, we had a 101.1-degree registered temperature in the ocean around south Florida.
From California to Vermont and across Republican and Democratic districts, if we want to leave our planet better for our children and our grandchildren, then we must strategically invest in products that improve energy and water efficiency, reduce emissions, and generate clean energy.
We need a coordinated, governmentwide approach to ensure that there is no duplication of effort or unnecessary red tape that disincentivizes public-private partnerships. This amendment prevents that.
The focus on elevating fossil fuels and thwarting the advancement of clean energy will not help this Nation build a strong economy for the future.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment strikes section 258, which prohibits funding for abortions and the implementation of the VA's interim final rule on access to reproductive healthcare. My Republican colleagues want to make abortion illegal nationwide.
Section 258 of this bill furthers that mission, putting women at risk and making it harder for veterans to access healthcare. Let's ensure that doesn't happen.
Madam Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 4366 to the Committee on Appropriations with the
following amendment:
Strike section 258.
Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.