Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to commend my sister in so many fights, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, whom we will miss. But we are not letting her get away that quickly, because we have about a year together with many fights and fun to engage in.

I am here this afternoon to talk about something not very pleasant, and that is the absolute necessity to adopt H.R. 2658, the Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act of 2017.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Sires have introduced this legislation, rightfully, because the Maduro regime has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no respect for political freedom, human rights, or even the basic needs of their own citizens. The consequences for the Venezuelan people are becoming more and more devastating every day.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the Maduro regime is refusing to allow food, medicine, and other essential supplies to reach Venezuelans in need. This bill would be a valuable step to ensure that the Venezuelan people are helped, even if their government would prefer that people die rather than receive aid from the international community.

The sanctions that have been imposed thus far against the perpetrators

in the Maduro regime have been steps in the right direction, but we must do more. The Venezuelan Government has demonstrated time and time again that they won't do the right thing on their own, so we must continue to apply stronger and stronger pressure. This legislation would strengthen the President's ability to tighten the screws on Maduro and his cronies.

In order for Venezuela to return to peace and prosperity, its democracy must be restored and strengthened. Elections under the Maduro regime have been manipulated and undermined, and it is absolutely essential that next year's Presidential election proceeds freely and fairly.

That is why it is so urgent that we pass this bill into law to empower the State Department to work with our allies and partners and the Venezuelan people to help them take their country back.

Many Venezuelans have fled the chaos in their country to freedom and safety in my congressional district. The significant infusion of our Venezuelan friends and neighbors has affectionately dubbed my hometown of Weston, Florida, as Westonzuela.

We have welcomed them to our community, but we are committed to joining them in the fight for their country and for their friends and family members who remain there in the fight. This legislation is an important step in that battle, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to honor the life of Bishop S.F. Makalani-MaHee, a minister and transgender activist from Oakland Park, Florida, who was the youngest pastor ever commissioned by the Unity Fellowship Church.

S.F. was born on July 5, 1972 to Barbara MaHee and the late Adisa Makalani. The family's Sundays were spent in church, where S.F. enjoyed serenading the congregation with gospel renditions of ``Jesus Can Work It Out.'' S.F. found his love of Broadway at the Julia Richman High School in New York, where producer Cheryl Weisenfeld cast him in a production of Grease.

After moving to Atlanta with family, S.F. began teaching theater courses, as well as lecturing for Georgia State University, Soapstone Center for the Performing Arts, and Spelman and Morehouse Colleges. He also founded the Heart Theater, a youth theater troupe, where he wrote and directed Journeys, an educational play focused on HIV/AIDS.

Bishop S.F. Makalani-MaHee came to South Florida in 1997 where he found his community, his congregation and his purpose. S.F. began working at the PRIDE Center in Wilton Manors, as well as many other non-profits. He founded Black Gay Pride South Florida and co-founded BLACKOUT, South Florida's first African-American LGBTQ Film Festival. S.F. was the first transgender person to be appointed to the Broward County Human Rights Board. He was also an active member of the Dolphin Democrats, the longest continually-operating LGBTQ advocacy group in the South.

Bishop S.F. Makalani-MaHee spent his life loving others unconditionally. Before his untimely passing, S.F. served as the Coordinator of the Transgender Program at the Broward County Department of Health, where he advocated for fellow members of South Florida's transgender community. S.F. passed away on November 20, 2017, this year's Transgender Day of Remembrance. He is survived by his mother Barbara; his siblings Darcy, Jeffrey, Justin, and Marsha; and several nephews. He is also survived by a community of friends across South Florida, Atlanta, and New York who he considered his family.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the life of Larry Joe Miller, artist-in-residence for the City of Hollywood, Florida. Larry served our nation in the United States Air Force where he earned a distinguished record of overseas service.

A true renaissance man, Larry was renowned for his music and art. He was known in South Florida as ``Mr. Rockabilly'' from his 50 years as a touring musician. During his touring days, he played with several popular bands, including the Thingies, Larry Joe Miller and the Rockabilly Rockets, and the Delusions. He was a lifelong artist who delighted Hollywood residents and all who visited.

As artist-in-residence, he hosted weekly community art events, including classes for students in need and his famous ``Paint for Fun'' nights, which allowed hundreds of South Florida residents to paint for free in Hollywood ArtsPark.

Above all, Larry was a beloved husband and father who impacted the lives of all who knew him. He is survived by his wife Amy; his sons Clay, Tyler, John Paul (Shelli), and Dennis (Stacy); and his grandchildren Aradia, Olivia, Phoenix, Owen, Quinn, Jessica, and Jason.

The City of Hollywood and the entire South Florida family lost an icon who will be sorely missed; however, I am confident Larry Joe Miller's legacy will live on through his work and the lessons he taught so many in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, the reality is that the truth hurts. This budget resolution totally abandons America's most cherished values and betrays its highest ideals.

This extreme budget not only threatens programs for our veterans and hungry children, it makes drastic cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid programs that our seniors count on for survival.

As it doles out that budgetary cruelty, this resolution hands massive tax cuts to millionaires and powerful corporations all while adding $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.

It also fails to protect our environment, neglects our children's education, and once more targets women's healthcare for severe cuts.

In short, the wealthy win, the middle class is ignored, and we all get saddled with more debt. Those are not values that this House should stand for. It is certainly not what veterans, children, seniors, or hardworking Americans deserve. This irresponsible budget rewards the rich and powerful and punishes everyone else, and that is the best thing that I can say about it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to recognize my good friend, The Honorable Barbara Sharief of Miramar, Florida, on her successful tenure as mayor of Broward County.

Mayor Sharief is the first African American woman, as well as the first Muslim, to serve as Broward County mayor. She was first elected to the nine-member County Commission in 2010, was elected mayor by her fellow commissioners in November 2013, and was re-elected in 2015. As mayor, she oversees Broward County's $4.3 billion operating budget, which operates the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Port Everglades, and a variety of regional services, such as parks, libraries, public works, and transit.

Mayor Sharief has focused her mayoralty on the theme of ``Broward Means Business.'' Mayor Sharief understands that small business is the backbone of our economy and has steadfastly highlighted and promoted county programs to ensure they succeed and thrive. To that end, she has begun every commission meeting by recognizing the civic leadership of one business in Broward County.

As she concludes her second term, Mayor Sharief continues the county's tradition of hosting the Mayor's Gala to raise funds for the United Way's Mission United program, helping veterans transition from active duty to civilian life.

In addition to making Broward County a better place for all business, Mayor Sharief manages her own business, South Florida Pediatric Home Care Inc., which she built from the ground up. She holds both a Master of Science in Nursing and an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner degree from Florida International University, and is pursuing a Doctorate of Nursing Practice. In addition to her role as mayor, businessowner, and student, she is also the mother of five children- Amanda, Zach, Alyssa, Meia, and Hailey.

Mayor Sharief is an extraordinary public servant whom I am proud to have worked alongside for the betterment of the residents of Broward County. I thank her for her dedicated service, and I wish her much success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Vice Mayor Diane Glasser of Tamarac, Florida, who passed away Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at the age of 89.

Diane was a woman who wore many hats in her time. She served as a Commissioner and Vice Mayor on the Tamarac City Commission, as Broward County's State Committeewoman to the Florida Democratic Party, and as a delegate to six consecutive Democratic National Conventions.

In an era when western Broward County was synonymous with massive developments of senior condos, Diane became a nationally-known political powerhouse through her ability to bring the ward-style organization from her native Brooklyn to the 5,000-unit 55-plus community known as Kings Point in Tamarac.

If you were a candidate or elected representative planning to set foot in Kings Point,

you did so only with Diane's blessing. She was an indomitable civic force in our community and built a get-out-the-vote operation in the condos that brought thousands of seniors to the polls for each and every election.

If Diane stumbled on a wrong, she was determined to make it right. She was a passionate advocate for the underserved, a defender of civil rights and someone who helped make Broward County a kinder, more compassionate community. She was a problem-solver and a leader, and brought people along where she saw a chance to make a positive impact on the lives of others.

Her passing brings with it the end of an era in South Florida politics. Diane is survived by her two sons, Craig and Lloyd Glasser, and one granddaughter, Dara.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Breast Cancer Awareness Month for millions of us in the breast cancer community.

The statistics are sobering: one in eight women will get breast cancer in her lifetime.

Earlier this year, I received a note from a former staffer. I had watched this young woman blossom from a young and eager intern to ultimately serving as my executive assistant and scheduler before she departed the Hill for graduate school, marriage, and a future full of promise. In the note, she wrote:

``My wedding was about 2 months ago. It was the most magical night of my life. It was so incredible to be surrounded by so many friends and loved ones and good will. I can't imagine ever being happier than I was that night.''

She went on to say:

``Unfortunately, things have gotten a little more complicated since then. While I was on my honeymoon, I noticed a small lump in my right breast. Since I had the benefit of working for you, I know that, while rare, it is possible that young women can get breast cancer, and I should take it seriously. I think you can probably guess where this is going . . . ''

She continued:

``We have no idea how this happened to me. I guess some people get struck by lightning, some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and some people get breast cancer at 29 with no family history.

``Luckily, it was caught early and the doctors have every confidence that it is fully curable and I will live a long and happy life.''

She ended the note by thanking me for advocating for breast cancer awareness, specifically for younger women.

She said:

``DWS,'' as I am often referred to by staff, ``keep fighting the good fight. It is saving the lives of people like me.''

Today, she is fighting the good fight, and I know she will win.

Unfortunately, just like my former staffer, I know all too well that it can strike even when you are young. In 2007, when I was only 41 years old, I learned I had breast cancer.

Like many others before me, when I was diagnosed, and later identified as a BRCA2 gene mutation carrier, I worried about many things: Would I be there to see my children grow up? Would I be able to beat this disease? Wasn't I too young to have breast cancer?

Fortunately, with the passage of the ACA--the Affordable Care Act-- insurance coverage cannot be taken away from people like me and like my former staffer. Access to affordable, quality healthcare is now a right, not a privilege.

As Members of Congress, we have a duty to protect this right. Instead of calling for senseless votes to repeal this legislation, I call on my Republican colleagues to join me in recognizing Breast Cancer Awareness Month by supporting those of us who are living healthier, stronger lives every day because of the Affordable Care Act.

The statistics for breast cancer remain alarming. The American Cancer Society estimates that 40,610 women will die from breast cancer in 2017 alone, making it the second most common type of cancer death in women.

Between the ages of 60 and 84, breast cancer incidence rates are markedly higher in White women than Black women. However, Black women have a higher incidence rate before age 45, and are more likely to die from breast cancer at every age. This is wholly unacceptable.

We must take action to provide women with the preventative services and screenings available while educating them on their risks and treatment options.

That is why, in 2009, I introduced the EARLY Act, a bipartisan bill that became law as part of the Affordable Care Act, to focus on equipping young women with the tools they need to make informed decisions regarding their breast health.

I am proud that the EARLY Act was reauthorized in 2014, and even more proud that it has, and is, helping young women like my former staffer.

This Congress, I also introduced the PALS Act with my good friend from Indiana, Congresswoman Susan Brooks.

This bill would extend the moratorium on the United States Preventive Services Task Force mammography screening guidelines to ensure women have access to lifesaving mammograms beginning at age 40.

It would also ensure women who have served our country--our women veterans--don't have to face these same obstacles in getting the care they and their healthcare providers deem necessary.

Because many insurance companies use the USPSTF guidelines as the basis for coverage, 22 million women between ages 40 and 49 could be at risk of losing coverage for this lifesaving screening.

The bottom line is the vast majority of experts recommend beginning screening mammograms at age 40. Women need to be able to follow this guidance until scientific consensus can be reached.

As someone who was diagnosed at just age 41, I can tell you that women need guaranteed access to these tests beginning at age 40.

We must also ensure the National Institutes of Health has the funding it needs to continue their progress.

I will continue to use my voice and my vote as an appropriator to ensure that critical funding is provided through the annual appropriations bill for breast cancer research, services, and support.

My story and my former staffer's story isn't unique. That is why we must do more to support our mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends who are

battling or who have survived this deadly disease. And we must do everything we can to eradicate breast cancer once and for all.

I look forward to continuing to work together with all of you--my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and with the advocacy community to help women know their risk, discover cancer early, and access the best treatment possible.

Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying to the people of Puerto Rico: Despite President Trump's indifference and soft bigotry, we will be there for the people of Puerto Rico until the last American's life returns to normal.

While I rise to support this critical emergency appropriations bill, this supplemental leaves much to be desired. This legislation provides vital recovery funds to my home State of Florida, as well as Texas; the U.S. Virgin Islands; Puerto Rico; and California, where wildfires remain ablaze. However, it neglects to include SBA loans for small businesses and homeowners, as well as making smart investments in our ports, coastlines, water systems, and electrical grids.

This bill also neglects to address the devastating agricultural losses, especially to Florida's $10 billion citrus industry. It is also important to note that, in Florida, this vital funding will not be able to address the public health hazard of debris strewn across our

lawns and streets as Governor Scott shamefully refuses to allow our cities to fully access FEMA funds.

While the majority has said these and other issues can be part of future omnibus negotiations, this delay will leave constituents waiting months longer to receive the services they so desperately need. They should not have to wait.

Mr. Chairman, debating this budget resolution is a partisan and pointless exercise, and I will point out to the chairman that it is October, after the fiscal year has expired and after we have already passed every single appropriations bill out of the House of Representatives, and, I might add, a continuing budget resolution.

Just as when we considered it in committee this summer, this resolution stands as a demonstration of the

majority's willful and disgraceful neglect of the needs of the American people.

With so many critical legislative issues for us to discuss, the majority has decided it is a better use of our time to discuss tax breaks for millionaires and wealthy corporations; taking healthcare away from 20 million Americans; blowing up our deficit with an ineffective, immoral border wall; and gutting crucial investments in jobs, education, and medical research.

Instead, this House should be enacting legislation to expand background checks and ban assault weapons to combat senseless firearm violence after this Nation witnessed, once again, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

This House should be passing the Dream Act to protect DREAMers who call this Nation home and protect them from this administration's heartless deportations.

Finally, instead of wasting taxpayer dollars and our constituents' time with this harmful budget resolution, this House should be reauthorizing CHIP, the bipartisan-backed Children's Health Insurance Program, which expired over the weekend and which potentially is going to leave children who badly need healthcare insurance twisting in the wind without it.

Congressional Republicans have chosen instead to bring this incredibly irresponsible and extreme bill to the floor.

In stunning ignorance of reality, it assumes TrumpCare will still pass. Just how many times must the majority be reminded that TrumpCare is not going to become law and the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land that Americans support?

How many times will the majority try to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, cut Medicare benefits, and raise insurance costs on elderly and low- income Americans?

Enough is enough. Instead of pandering to the well connected and our worst impulses, this budget should embody America's best values, and it is far from it.

Sadly, this budget does not reflect our responsibility to care for and invest in the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program as they celebrate 25 years of service to our veterans community.

Since 1992, the Veterans Consortium has provided over $100 million in pro bono services working on five thousand individual cases.

As our veterans return home from military service, it is critical they receive the benefits and care they deserve and need. The tireless efforts of the Veterans Consortium representing veterans at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is an essential aspect of our promise to support service members as they transition to civilian life.

As the Ranking Member of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I commend the member attorneys of the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program for their generosity and unwavering commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her commitment, for her work, and for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 5 years as a proud member of the Judiciary Committee. I miss it and I hope to return one day to add on to my responsibilities as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I also thank Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership and solid, consistent support for this program over the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 782, Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act--or the PROTECT Our Children Act--because at this very moment there are thousands of children out there waiting to be saved.

Our children deserve, as we all agree, a future that is healthy, prosperous, bright, secure, and, most of all, safe. That is, of course, what every parent cares about the most: the safety of their children. But, sadly, our children are vulnerable when they are online.

With the proliferation of the internet and wireless technology, online child pornography has become an epidemic, and I don't use that term lightly. The ever-increasing reach of the modern internet has facilitated an exploding, multibillion-dollar market for child pornography.

Tragically, the demand for this criminal market can only be supplied by graphic new images, and these images can only be supplied through the sexual assault of more children. Let's not forget that these are not just heinous photos or images. They are, simply put, crime scene photos created by a thriving industry that uses children as sexual commodities.

Ten years ago, I introduced H.R. 3845, the Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2007--or PROTECT Our Children Act of 2007.

At a House Judiciary hearing on that bill, my colleagues will remember we heard from a very brave young woman, Alicia Kozakiewicz. She had been abducted by an internet predator when she was just 13 years old. She was held captive in his dungeon basement and sexually tortured for 4 days.

The FBI found Alicia because the Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force--or ICAC--had the technology to lift the digital fingerprints of this perpetrator's crimes. They were able to discover the location where he held her captive, chained to the floor, connected to a collar around her neck. Internet crimes officers tracked the IP address back to his door and literally rescued Alicia from death.

I remember Alicia's testimony like it was yesterday because it moved many of the members of that committee, including myself, to tears. Over the course of that next year, we learned a lot about these types of offenders: who they are, how they operate, and, most importantly, where they are.

We saw detailed law enforcement maps that showed the locations of hundreds of thousands of sexual predators, over half of whom had actual child victims waiting to be rescued.

That number might lend people to think: Come on, that has to be an exaggeration. It is not. I have seen the evidence before my eyes: hundreds of thousands of sexual predators, each on a computer uploading pictures of child victims that they are sexually assaulting. Those maps described the truly harrowing environment.

Congress did what it was supposed to do. We acted. We passed H.R. 3845 and, the following year, passed its companion, S. 1738. This legislation established the National Internet Crimes Against Children-- or ICAC--Task Force Program, a specialized group of law enforcement officials dedicated to the protection of our children.

In 2009 and 2010, Congress funded the ICAC Task Force at close to their full authorization levels of $50 million per year. The task forces grew from 42 to 61, and arrests and child rescues doubled.

Literally thousands more predators were apprehended and children rescued. An untold number of sexual assaults were prevented by virtue of the fact that the most dangerous offenders were sitting behind bars, where they could no longer harm our children.

In 2011, however, the ICAC Task Force budget was slashed, cut from $50 million to where it is today at $27 million. So, with all due respect, I have to correct my colleagues. We are not funding the ICAC Task Force at authorized levels.

This cut remains intact, despite the fact that, as of August 2017, law enforcement has seen nearly a half million unique IP addresses trafficking in sexual abuse images in the U.S. That is hundreds of thousands of separate online sexual predators, and that number is only from January 2017 to August 31, 2017.

Even more heartbreaking, law enforcement officials tell us that the victims are getting younger, most under the age of 10, and the abuse is getting more sadistic. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 44 percent of the images, Mr. Speaker, they viewed in 2016 depicted sexual torture.

Law enforcement also tells us that only 7 percent of the top 100 traders on peer-to-peer networks trading these types of images are even under investigation.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just unacceptable; it is tragic. We owe our children much better than that. They deserve our help and a Congress that will do whatever it can to ensure their health and safety.

S. 782, the Senate version of a bill that I introduced in March of this year with my colleague and friend, Lamar Smith, as the chairman kindly thanked us, reauthorizes the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

According to estimates, half of the arrests made by ICAC teams lead us to the door of a hands-on offender and, thus, a child waiting to be rescued.

The PROTECT Our Children reauthorization before us today will help us continue to provide the safety net we so desperately need by allowing these highly successful ICAC Task Forces to continue to support State and local law enforcement agencies.

While I applaud House leadership for making sure this crucial child rescue program and funding is not allowed to expire, I beseech my colleagues to also make sure that the ICAC Task Forces are fully funded. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I press for that every year.

We have to do better. We have to get as close to the authorization level as we can, because we actually rescue children with the more resources we put into this.

Mr. Speaker, we must give the protection of these children our full focus and efforts. Please think about these precious babies being victimized. If you are a parent--and many of us are--God forbid if it was your own child. It could be any of our children, because of the prevalence of our children being online.

Let's give these ICAC teams the resources they need to rescue as many children as possible. If we do that, thousands more innocent children will be protected from these unspeakable crimes. There, but for the grace of God, go our families and children.

I thank my Republican lead cosponsor, Congressman Lamar Smith, for teaming up with me again to reauthorize this for yet another 5 years for this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support the PROTECT Our Children Act reauthorization.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time and for her hard work during this arduous process. And I would also like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Dent for their hard work as well.

As we all know, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill has a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship. Chairman Dent, like always, set a cooperative tone and was inclusive throughout this process. He has worked tirelessly to address many Members' concerns, and I joined him in that effort, as well as critical issues impacting our veterans and Active and Reserve servicemembers.

The Military Construction portion of this minibus provides adequate funding for both the Active and Reserve components. In addition, the bill funds the NATO Security Investment Program at the FY17 level, sending a strong message to our Nation's allies that we stand with them as we continue to face evolving international threats.

For the Department of Veterans Affairs, this bill provides $3.9 billion, which is a 5.3 percent increase over FY 2017.

I am also pleased that this bill will address the issue of breast cancer awareness and prevention and provides almost $700 million for medical research, which will fund essential efforts, such as those to address TBI and PTSD, develop state-of-the-art prosthetics, care for victims of military sexual trauma, and treat veterans suffering from mental illness.

The bill also continues to fund important programs to combat veteran homelessness, provide our vets with effective and timely healthcare, and improve the veteran benefits application process and appeals process.

I am also extremely grateful for Chairman Dent's support for in vitro fertilization and coverage for assisted reproductive technologies for veterans who have sustained a service-connected injury that impacts their fertility. This issue is very important to me and to so many servicemembers. All veterans deserve to be able to start families. Moreover, providing access to IVF is consistent with the VA's goals to support veterans and improve their quality of life.

On a personal note, this bill will also address the issue of breast cancer awareness and prevention.

This past spring, our subcommittee visited the Washington VA Medical Center. We learned that the VA was relying on the controversial USPSTF guidance for mammography in making coverage decisions.

Last Congress, we passed a law that barred private insurers from making coverage decisions based on these guidelines through 2018. However, the moratorium did not apply, we learned in that visit to the VA, and so women in their forties who were veterans could be denied coverage for mammograms. To its credit, the VA changed its guideline regarding screening, and with Chairman Dent's support, language is included to hold the VA to this better standard.

As I stated during my testimony before the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere belief that if the MILCON-VA bill were being considered as a stand-alone, as is tradition, under an open rule, it would receive strong bipartisan support. But, unfortunately, that is not what we are doing here today.

Instead of following regular order, we, instead, are taking up four bills at once and adding funds to begin construction on President Trump's irresponsible border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for, and now taxpayers are being stuck with the bill. This fiscally and morally irresponsible expenditure leaves the nondefense appropriations bills grossly underfunded.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, this bill isn't even great for defense. All this talk about making sure that we provide adequate resources for our defense and our national security ignores the fact that the Budget Control Act provides additional funds that would ultimately be sequestered without a cap adjustment. This minibus would breach this cap by more than $72 billion, resulting in a mandatory 13.2 percent sequester of all defense accounts, including the Military Construction title.

And, by the way, I have said this repeatedly each time I have spoken on this legislation, and never once has anyone in the majority countered what I am suggesting. That is deeply troubling.

So even if this bill is signed into law, which it will not be, DOD would not receive one dollar of this increase.

Secretary Mattis testified ``sequestration and the continued use of continuing resolutions would result in a steady erosion of military readiness.'' That is the only outcome this bill guarantees. By taking up this minibus today, we are setting ourselves up for failure, and we have set ourselves up

for an early fall with no real progress to be made on the FY 2018 appropriations bills.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to govern in this fashion. I believe it is time that we stop listening to the most extreme voices and get past these unrealistic beliefs that we can cut our way to prosperity. We cannot. If this failed philosophy persists, our work will only get more difficult.

It is clear that passing any appropriations bill that will be signed into law will require a bipartisan majority of both Houses. As a result of this irresponsible posture, I will sadly be voting against the minibus, and I look forward to working towards an appropriations product that both parties can work on together in true bipartisan tradition.

Mr. Chairman, lastly, before I close, I thank our staff in the MILCON-VA bill on both the majority and the minority side: Maureen Holohan, Sarah Young, Sue Quantius, Sean Snyder, and Tracey Russell with the majority; and Matt Washington, Rosalyn Kumar, and Jonathan Steinberg with the minority.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment and support the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments from Democratic Members.

The amendments included range from therapy grants to combating opioid abuse. These amendments will deliver better care to our veterans.

The minority has no objection to this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who has been a passionate advocate to improve services to his rural communities.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, President Trump, the ``Commander in Tweet,'' tweeted this morning announcing a ban on transgender military service, which was a completely baseless and hateful assault on transgender Americans. Make no mistake: this was not just a midnight tweet. This was a statement of this administration's discriminatory policies and a step backwards for our Nation.

While the President tweeted that his decision came after consulting, supposedly, with our Nation's top generals, that was apparently news to them, as it was met with utter surprise and silence from Pentagon leaders.

Additionally, the President may want to speak to his VA Secretary, as the VA has unequivocally stated VA's policy has not changed. The VA provides care, benefits, and other VA services to all veterans, including transgender veterans.

The President's policy reversal comes after our military has undertaken a measured and thoughtful process to make our military open to LGBT Americans to serve their Nation with pride and patriotism. This thoughtful process included the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which had the support of civilian and military defense leaders and an overwhelming number of Americans.

Unlike the President's tweets, the decision to make our military more open was not made rashly or with the intention to discriminate.

With over 6,000 transgender Americans serving on Active Duty, in the National Guard, and in our Reserve forces, it would be reckless, dangerous, and cruel to remove brave servicemembers from their critical roles protecting the American people. It is reckless and dangerous to immediately leave vacant positions that are so vital to our national security.

It would be cruel to perniciously discharge these servicemembers less than honorably, an act that could gravely impact whether they are eligible for VA benefits.

Time and again, we see the dramatic and unintended consequences of this President's thoughtless actions.

As we fight for an open military, we will also fight to provide the proper care and resources to the over 130,000 transgender veterans that fought to defend this Nation.

Additionally, whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this decision was not based on a financial cost-benefit analysis.

Allowing transgender people to serve in the military would raise defense health spending by less than 0.1 percent annually, including funds for gender reassignment surgeries. That is just $2.4 million to $8.4 million.

In comparison, just so we are illustrative, the Pentagon spends $84.24 million annually on erectile dysfunction prescriptions. Of that, $41.6 million was specifically spent on Viagra.

Moreover, research has shown that greater inclusion has little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. In fact, commanders have noted that these policies benefited all servicemembers by creating a more inclusive and diverse force.

Mr. Chairman, several things are clear:

This was not a decision based on fiscal responsibility.

This was not a decision based on military readiness.

This decision was apparently made to save the President's immoral, irresponsible border wall, because some Republican Members threatened to bring down the entire minibus appropriations bill that we are debating here today over transgender medical treatment in the military.

This decision, at the end of the day, was based purely on bigotry and hate, and it is one that we will vehemently oppose.

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

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Ratcliffe

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

Mr. Chairman, I, like many Members, have concerns regarding another round of BRAC. I realize that this is a complicated issue for all Members of Congress, especially those with military facilities in their congressional districts.

I have had this conversation with my chairman, Mr. Dent, several times. And while we both share the concerns of those Members with military bases in their district and other military facilities, the gentleman is right. We are going to need to address that we have facilities all across the country that really need to be evaluated because they are, essentially, maintaining infrastructure that is no longer needed.

For example, the estimate of excess capacity for the Army is 22 percent. The Air Force's estimate of excess capacity is roughly 30 percent. Both the Army and the Air Force are strong supporters of another BRAC round.

While this amendment really has no effect because we don't actually have any funding in this bill for another BRAC round, it does send the message that Congress is unwilling to tackle what is arguably a tough issue.

This amendment would be, essentially, an abdication of our duties as Members of this House to ensure that taxpayer resources are being used in a wise and fiscally responsible way, and

that is something that we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle regularly.

And given that we have a very significant increase in the defense appropriations bill, when we have resources that we are expending or, essentially, wasting by not having a BRAC round, then we are, essentially, leaving that money on the table when we could provide it for our national defense.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I recognize that the chairman is willing to accept it, but we should underscore that there are no funds in this bill for a round of BRAC, so, essentially, the acceptance of this amendment adopts the same posture that this bill already holds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, the VA conducts animal research at 74 of its facilities, and only 3 of these--Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Richmond-- are still conducting experiments on dogs that involve inflicting significant pain and distress. Just

yesterday, another whistleblower went public with graphic photos of mutilated dogs and other troubling information about dog testing at that facility.

In addition, a recent VA Office of Research Oversight investigation found that the VA failed to keep adequate records about sick and suffering dogs and has consistently underreported the number of dogs used in experiments to Federal authorities.

I want to be clear that this amendment, unfortunately, does not stop all animal research at the VA, and it doesn't even stop all dog research at the VA--again, unfortunately. Far from it, in fact. This amendment rightly and simply prohibits taxpayers' dollars from being spent on research that causes dogs significant pain and distress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of Bailey, Demmy, Coqui, Minnie, and Maddie Schultz.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept, and a fair one at that. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is to protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy that is very simple and very straightforward: paying decent wages on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics.

Mr. Chairman, the House has taken numerous and repeated votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. In fact, most recently, during consideration of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, in a bipartisan fashion, the House firmly rejected a similar amendment 242-183.

Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this in this bill, and it is my hope that we stop attacking the working class and defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more important matters as we surely have in front of us.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), who has been a passionate advocate and fighter for working men and women of this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the gentleman from Iowa repeatedly engages in revisionist history when it comes to walking the Chamber through the history of why we have Davis-Bacon.

It was actually in 1927 that a contractor who was employing African- American workers was building a Veterans Bureau hospital--fitting that we are debating this on this bill in the district of Congressman Bacon. What Congressman Bacon found was that there were very serious issues related to low wages being paid, competitive pressure towards those lower wages, discrimination against the wages of migrant workers, and so he introduced Davis-Bacon initially to be able to make sure that workers on construction projects would be able to be paid the prevailing wages in the community.

These workers happened to be African American. That is about the only thing that is at all related to the so-called Jim Crow reference that the gentleman from Iowa made.

We need to make sure that, no matter where you work on a Federal Government project, construction workers, working people who are trying to make sure that they produce quality work, are able to produce that quality work by being paid the prevailing wage in a community based on those standards.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor Pembroke Pines City Commissioner Carl Shechter.

In recognition of Mr. Shechter's tremendous work on behalf of Pembroke Pines residents, the city has dedicated its Southwest Focal Point Community Center Campus in his name.

The Carl Shechter Southwest Focal Point Community Center provides services and programming that promote the wellbeing of Pembroke Pines residents. Whether it is Adult Day Care services for seniors or educational and recreational programs for families, the Center unites a broad array of individuals from across Southwest Broward County.

It is fitting that the center be named for Commissioner Shechter as he has always been devoted to enriching the lives of others. He is an extraordinary public servant, and all who walk through the doors of the Carl Shechter Southwest Focal Point Community Center shall now be reminded of his compassionate leadership.

I am proud to call Carl my friend and recognize him today for his selfless contribution to our community. I wish Commissioner Shechter and his family a heartfelt congratulations on this momentous occasion.

Will the gentleman yield?

I represent the State of Florida. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing up this extremely important conversation about the, at least, 23 million people who would have lost healthcare coverage if the ``Not Very Affordable Care Act'' that the Republicans envisioned would have passed.

If I were the President of the United States, I might want to revise my definition of winning, because I think that we have a leader in the White House who repeatedly said that America would get so tired of winning, once he became President, that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves.

Well, if killing their horrific healthcare bill and making sure that we can maintain healthcare as a right and not return it to the privilege that it once was for only people who could afford it, then I will take that kind of winning, because we did win on behalf of the American people, but we know that this is not the last trick up their sleeve.

The gentlewoman from Wisconsin mentioned the huge cuts to Medicaid in this terrible piece of legislation, and the gentleman from Texas mentioned the 64 percent of seniors in nursing homes who are there because they are on Medicaid.

I represent the State of Florida, Mr. Speaker, and in the State of Florida, we have the highest percentage of senior citizens as a proportion of our population in the country. This is just one example of a very vulnerable population, and this is an example of a population that our friends on the other side of the aisle were willing to just write off and leave twisting in the wind.

What would happen if this bill became law is we would go back to the days before Medicare and before Medicaid, in which you had families go bankrupt trying to take care of the ever-increasing healthcare needs of their most elderly family members, and it is just absolutely unacceptable.

I, too, had a very similar experience. My mother-in-law suddenly had a stroke when she was 58 years old, and she was cut down in her prime, also suffered from diabetes, and spent 3 years really in a very debilitated condition. She had to spend down essentially all of her assets to be able to qualify for Medicaid, because the only way that she could get care in a nursing home and be able to afford to get quality care in a nursing home was through Medicaid. She did also eventually die after 3 years in a nursing home, but I can't even imagine having to try to find a way to pay for her care if it were not for Medicaid.

``Mean'' was the exact word that the President used.

I would be happy to. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and we are actually going to mark up the Republicans' budget tomorrow in that committee. Really, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the ``Commander in Tweet,'' President Trump's budget that he proposed in May certainly did not put either families or taxpayers first--far from it.

In fact, the budget that both he proposed and that we will mark up tomorrow put Americans and taxpayers dead last, right behind polluters, industry lobbyists, and climate change deniers. And like too many of our Republican colleagues' spending priorities, this budget, this Republican budget, is actually a brutal attack on America's families.

We all know that it fails to deliver on investments in jobs, in infrastructure, and in education, but, my friends, nowhere is the damage to American families as stark as when it comes to our environment.

The Trump budget, the Republican budget that we will mark up tomorrow, will irreparably damage our air, our water, and our climate. The President has already managed to undermine America's position as a global leader in clean energy frontiers by withdrawing America from the Paris climate accord, for example. And like many of his tweets, President Trump's climate science policies are a rejection of reality, and a cynical embrace of falsehood and fantasy.

Ms. Jayapal represents a State that is on a coast, I represent a State that is on a coast, Ms. Moore represents a State that is on the Great Lakes. Sea levels are rising. Our water levels are rising, Mr. Speaker. Property appraisers and insurance companies in south Florida are already factoring this reality into their home value assessments. King tides are bringing fish into the streets of south Florida.

President Trump's climate change solution is not the Paris climate accord, it is not making sure that we make investments in alternative energy. Let me show you what President Trump's solution to sea level rise and climate change is. His solution is to throw people a life vest, and they can sink or swim. Folks like the people in my district, who have invested most of their savings, like so many people, into their home, a life vest and being told that they can just deal with it is unacceptable.

We have to come together and come up with solutions to make sure that we can fight sea level rise and climate change, to make sure we can keep our drinking water clean, to make sure we make the kinds of investments so that we can protect the air we breathe. We have cities like Flint, Michigan, that have dealt with lead in their water and children being poisoned for years.

To my colleagues, this is something that is an existential threat, that if we don't make the kinds of investments that we must, then we are going to be in a world of hurt, and it is not at some distant point in the future. There was an article in the Miami Herald yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that referenced that my children's generation may not be able to live in my own district. That is absolutely unbelievable.

I am actually thinking of sponsoring an appropriation. Rather than making sure that we can invest in moving away from fossil fuels, maybe we will just invest in more life vests, President Trump's solution to global warming and climate change and sea level rise, and just issue everybody one of these, and we are good to go.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just came from the Appropriations Committee markup on the Interior legislation, and a large part of that committee's work relates to the environment.

In my district, which is ground zero for sea level rise, Broward County recently ordered the drawing of new flood maps because of anticipated higher water levels. The city of Fort Lauderdale has already increased the height requirement for seawalls and raised the elevation of home sites. Miami Beach's climate plan involves building elevated roads and installing pumps to keep out saltwater.

So the President's and the Republican's--our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--solution for sea level rise is basically sink or swim. Here is the President's coastal flood mitigation plan. We have got the sea level rise plan and the coastal flood mitigation plan. Take your pick. At some point, we are probably going to have to give people both because we literally have to slosh around in galoshes when you are walking down the street in south Florida because of how bad the king tides are and how bad the streets flood in a normal rain.

But, God forbid, we should invest in infrastructure. And I know the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), when she was in the State senate, was a significant leader on investing in infrastructure, which is absolutely critical to making sure that we can keep people safe and that we can make sure that we can create jobs. That is something that this President and the Republicans have talked a whole lot about.

We are 178 days into this President's term, and we haven't passed a single piece of legislation related to infrastructure investment. And I think he actually promised to think big, because supposedly Democrats weren't thinking big enough; and that he was going to propose a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. I am hearing crickets. I am still waiting for that plan.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentlewoman be surprised that last night in the Appropriations Committee, we marked up the T-HUD bill--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill? And for all the talk about making it in America and investing in infrastructure and transportation and making sure that we can create jobs through those vehicles, will the gentlewoman be surprised that the Republican majority actually zeroed out TIGER grants?

Those are the transportation grants that go directly to projects in communities across this country, to help move people around through people movers and investments in roads and bridges.

In my district, a TIGER grant was granted last year for complete streets because we have the highest number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed in the country, unfortunately, in Broward County.

So would the gentlewoman be surprised to learn the so-called big commitment to creating jobs and investing in infrastructure actually resulted in massive cuts in the very legislation where we would be investing those resources and infrastructure?

I just wanted to, again, place these items on the table and demonstrate the grave impact that will take its toll on the American people if the cuts that have been proposed by the Trump administration and the Republican majority go through. And we will stand together fighting every step of the way to make sure that-- instead of galoshes, a life vest, and a surgical mask that we see so many citizens of other countries have to walk around their streets using because their air quality is so poor, we will stand together to continue to fight to make the kind of investments that will help improve, not detract, from people's quality of life.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the Perry amendment, that would strike section 336 of the National Defense Authorization Act bill under consideration by the House.

Section 336 is a commonsense and essential provision that simply acknowledges the fact that climate change is an urgent and direct threat not only to our national security, but also to our armed forces and our military installations around the world. This amendment would weaken our national security by preventing our military from planning and preparing to best meet these threats.

Despite the consensus view of the world's climate scientists that human actions are accelerating climate changes through our excessive carbon emissions, there continue to be some Members of this body that hope if we don't assess the threat too closely, it will go away.

As Members of this body, we have sworn to protect the public welfare from all threats, foreign and domestic. And make no mistake, our changing climate--fueled by humanity's enormous carbon emissions--is exactly such a threat.

But don't take my word for it. The words of Defense Secretary James Mattis that are included in the text of this bill are instructive, and deleting them through this amendment will make them no less true. He said, ``I agree that the effects of a changing climate--such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others--impact our security situation . . . [and] it is appropriate . . . to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment . . . into [our] planning.''

And as former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gordon Sullivan has stated: ``Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.''

The bipartisan language of section 336 goes on to state that, ``a three-foot rise in sea levels will threaten the operations of more than 128 United States military sites, and it is possible that many of these at-risk bases could be submerged in the coming years.''

For my district in South Florida, we don't have to look to the future to see the threat posed by rising temperatures. Climate change is a threat today. Sea levels have already risen nine inches in the last several decades and, according to FIU's Sea Level Solutions Center, we could see up to another six inches of sea level rise in just over a dozen years.

Today ``king tides'' cause flooding in low-lying communities several times a year. We cannot afford another six inches, let alone another three feet of ocean water. And our marine ecosystems and corals are also under attack from increased acidification caused by carbon dioxide absorption in ocean waters.

As Members of Congress, we have a duty to the taxpayers of this country not only to protect our communities from the worst effects of climate change, but also to ensure that we spend wisely on national defense and international assistance for humanitarian and disaster response.

It is therefore imperative that our military leaders be allowed to assess the vulnerabilities to our military installations and ensure we build in resiliency so that our military is ready to meet the challenges ahead. Simply put, we should give our military leaders the tools they need to protect the American public.

Section 336 does exactly that and this amendment must be rejected.

Whether out of concern for our national defense, our public health, our environment, the economic well-being of our communities, or for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-advised amendment.