Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my Engage the Pacific Act, co-introduced with 11 of my like-minded colleagues who are focused on our country's engagement through the Indo-Pacific.

Successive administrations and Congresses have recognized that no region is more consequential to the future of our country than the Indo-Pacific, to include the Pacific Islands. It is crucial that we continue to broaden and deepen U.S. engagement in the Pacific Islands in pursuit of a free and open Indo-Pacific, particularly in the context of the major challenges the Pacific Islands face, such as natural disasters, economic obstacles, maintenance of civil society and threats to democracy and sovereignty from malign actors. This is not just a matter of diplomacy; it is a matter of shared responsibility and mutual benefit.

To help address these challenges and ensure our nation continues to play a critical role in strengthening U.S. public engagement in the Pacific Islands, we have introduced the Engage the Pacific Act. This legislation is grounded in specific requests from Pacific Islands leaders, as well as priorities identified by our own U.S. government officials. This bill clearly reflects the alignment of Pacific Islands priorities with U.S. interests in the region, particularly when it comes to fostering civil society, economic resilience and democratic governance.

First, this bill requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator and the Secretary of Defense, to establish the Committee on Engagement with Civil Society Organizations in the Pacific Islands. This Committee will be tasked with coordinating interagency engagement with civil society organizations in the Pacific Islands, to include media organizations, environmental organizations and faith-based organizations.

These non-governmental community organizations are pillars of Pacific Islands society; they often fill critical gaps in delivery of foreign assistance and reach important sectors of the population. The Committee will also be required to submit a strategy on enhanced engagement with civil society organizations in the Pacific Islands.

Second, the bill requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Administrator of USAID and the Secretary of Defense, to refine our overall communications strategy in the Pacific Islands. The United States is and for centuries has been a Pacific nation, deeply engaged as a partner in our mutual present and future. This strategy is crucial to fully and adequately communicating the breadth and depth of American efforts throughout the Pacific.

Third, the bill codifies the Indo-Pacific Media Advancement Program (IPMAP). IPMAP promotes free media in the Indo-Pacific, including in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, through training in countering misinformation and business sustainability, small grants for equipment and content sharing agreements. IPMAP is currently running under a two- year, $2 million Countering PRC Influence Grant from the Department of State. With those limited resources, IPMAP has already been able to work with 30 media outlets and has been incredibly well-received. Officially establishing this program under the Department of State and authorizing appropriations for it will ensure that IPMAP's important work can continue for years to come.

Fourth, this bill establishes the Pacific Islands Training and Resources for Advancement in Development, Education and Skills (TRADES) Program under USAID. Many Pacific Islands leaders have commended American efforts in the realm of professional development through higher education scholarship programs, and they have advocated for efforts to expand such programs to technical and vocational education and training. This provision of the bill seeks to rectify that by authorizing USAID to assist with workforce development in the region through scholarships, training and grants in sectors of critical importance to the Pacific Islands, such as construction, tourism, boat maintenance and fisheries. The Pacific Islands TRADES Program will support the region's economic resilience and capacity to maximize the benefits of national investment and business opportunities.

Finally, this bill supports and requires a report on American Spaces in the region. American Spaces are public diplomacy facilities operated or supported by the Department of State that promote effective engagement with foreign audiences toward the full understanding of the United States. These facilities are a crucial component of American outreach in the region, allowing residents to learn about opportunities to study in the United States, participate in mentorship programs and more. The report requires a description of any additional resources needed for the expansion of this program.

These provisions represent and enhance the sustained commitment of the United States to the Pacific Islands. This bill serves as a testament to the United States' enduring presence in the region and demonstrates that we are willing and able to respond to the region's specific needs in a way that is fully consistent with American national interests.

Together, let us Engage the Pacific--for today, for tomorrow and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I join my friend from Guam (Mr. Moylan) and my friend from North Carolina (Ms. Manning) and many colleagues in strong support of H. Res. 837, reaffirming our country's enduring ties with the great Republic of the Philippines.

The strength of the U.S.-Philippines relationship endures on a foundation of shared heritage, history, and values, from Filipinos being the first documented Asian ethnic group in North America to the still-growing population of Filipino Americans today, numbering over 4.6 million, now the third largest group of Asian descent in our country, to our mutual vibrant democracies, and so much more.

In my own Hawaii, I am the very proud Representative for the congressional district with the highest number of Filipino Americans of any district in our country, some 204,000 today. For over a century, we in Hawaii have had experience in understanding how Hawaii and our Nation have greatly benefited from the significant contributions and accomplishments of our Filipino community.

The U.S.-Philippines relationship has perhaps never been as strong as it is today, and it is these people-to-people ties that are the foundation behind the security partnership outlined in the 1951 U.S.- Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. It recognizes an attack in the Pacific on either of us would endanger the peace of both of us and that we must act in concert to meet common dangers.

This security relationship is critical today, given continued aggression by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. This congressional reaffirmation comes on the heels of Secretary of Defense Austin's recent visit to Palawan where he reaffirmed the ironclad U.S. commitment to the Philippines and reiterated that the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty extends to Armed Forces, public vessels, and aircraft of both countries, including those of the Coast Guard anywhere in the South China Sea.

That is just one of many reasons why the reaffirmation of our relationship with the Philippines by this United States Congress, as well as this resolution, is more important now than ever.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our critical U.S.- Philippines relationship. ``Thank you very much and God bless,'' ``Maraming salamat po and Dios ti agngina.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a critical and growing challenge that severely impacts our environment and has widespread ripple-effect consequences beyond: invasive species.

This challenge threatens the delicate balance of our ecosystems, as invasive species can outcompete, prey on or introduce diseases to our native flora and fauna. The consequences of these disruptions are severe, leading to declines in biodiversity, diminishing the resilience of our ecosystems in the face of environmental change. These effects in turn can cause widespread economic damage; agriculture and forestry would be just two examples.

Hawaii in particular faces unique challenges from invasive species. Its isolation has led to the evolution of many endemic species that are found nowhere else on Earth. Unfortunately, these native species often lack the defenses to compete with or resist the pressures of invasive plants and animals, which can rapidly alter ecosystems and displace local species. In Hawaii, invasive species have caused significant ecological damage, threatening the survival of native birds and plants. Protecting Hawaii's unique biodiversity is not just an environmental necessity--it is a cultural imperative that reflects the identity and heritage of the Hawaiian people.

Invasive species are not just a localized problem; they pose a significant threat to the integrity of our natural world. Addressing this crisis requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach, focusing on prevention, early detection, and effective management strategies to safeguard our vulnerable ecosystems.

In response to this urgent need, I am jointly introducing the Invasive Species Response Act with my colleague, Rep. Jim Moylan of Guam. This legislation will codify the existing Invasive Species Strike Teams program currently operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These specialized teams play an essential role in managing emerging invasive species, employing strategies tailored to local conditions across the National Wildlife Refuge System. With 21 teams strategically positioned in various FWS regions, they are on the front lines, addressing the unique challenges posed by invasive species.

The Invasive Species Response Act signifies a transformative shift within the FWS, moving us from a reactive, species-by-species approach to a more strategic, system-wide framework for managing emerging invasive species. Key provisions of the bill include formally establishing the Invasive Species Strike Teams program, which will create a stable and legally supported framework to ensure consistent funding and enhance our management efforts. The act also mandates enhanced coordination and reporting through integrated systems and standardized procedures, ensuring transparency and enabling us to track progress with annual reports to Congress and the public. Furthermore, it authorizes $15 million annually from Fiscal Year 2025 through 2029, aligning with current FWS investment levels to support ongoing initiatives.

This legislation is a crucial step forward in protecting our natural resources and enhancing our capacity to respond swiftly to the threats posed by invasive species.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to our Invasive Species Response Act. Together, we can ensure the preservation of our ecosystems and promote a resilient future for our environment.

Mahalo.

Mr. Speaker, since 2019, and as the Member of Congress with the most Filipino Americans of any U.S. House district nationwide, I have been honored to co-lead an annual resolution recognizing October as Filipino American History Month. I have joined many colleagues in doing so in order to recognize and celebrate the great contributions of Filipino Americans to our country, in government and law, music and entertainment, sports, business and countless other ventures.

The first recorded arrival of Filipinos in the continental United States took place on October 18, 1587, when the ``Luzones Indios'' came ashore from the Manila-built galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza in Morro Bay, California. This was followed by the first permanent Filipino settlement in the United States in St. Malo, Louisiana in 1763. Since those early beginnings, our Filipino American community has grown to approximately 4.4 million citizens and is the third largest Asian American and Pacific Islander group in the United States. Many of the early Filipino immigrants were young men who came to the United States, most to Hawaii, California, Washington and Alaska, seeking a better life.

This first generation of Filipino immigrants are commonly referred to as the Manong generation (Ilocano for first-born male). They worked mostly physically demanding jobs in tough conditions for very little pay. Over the years, they fought against discrimination, found a way forward, became respected members of their communities, and made a better future for themselves and their future generations. The several generations since have thrived upon that foundation.

The history of the Fil-Am community in Hawaii is particularly rich and echoes the national story. In 1906, the first fifteen sakada contract laborers arrived in Honolulu from the Philippines aboard the SS Doric, marking the first sustained immigration into our country and the humble beginnings of Fil-Ams in Hawaii. These first immigrants, those that followed and the subsequent generations eventually became trailblazers in politics and government, the military, business and entrepreneurship, journalism, popular culture, music and the arts and more.

Our resolution honors the tremendous and increasing contribution of Filipinos Americans to our country in all areas including music, dance, literature, education, health care, business, literature, journalism, sports, fashion, politics, government, science, technology, the fine arts and other fields. To name just a few as examples, again from my Hawaii:

Domingo Los Banos was Hawaii's first Filipino American school principal and a loyal veteran of the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment that fought in the Philippines during World War II.

Carolina Dizon Wong broke a glass ceiling when she obtained an M.D. degree and became the first Filipino American to start a medical practice in Hawaii in 1952.

Peter Aduja became the first Fil-Am elected to public office in the United States when he was elected to the Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives in 1954.

Larry Ramos became to first Filipino and Asian-American to win a Grammy Award playing the banjo for the New Christy Minstrels in 1963.

Ines Cayaban was the first Filipino American graduate of the School of Public Health, Nursing and Social Work at the University of Hawaii. She received the prestigious Jefferson Award in 1986 for her service.

In 1994, Ben Cayetano was elected the Governor of Hawaii, becoming the first Filipino American governor of a state in our union.

In 2019, Roy Macaraeg became the first Fil-Am to become a general officer in the history of Hawaii's citizen soldier ranks.

In Hawaii, we also regularly honor the over 250,000 Filipinos nationwide who answered the call to protect and defend America and the Philippines in the Pacific theater. In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act to bestow Congress's highest honor upon those veterans. With my colleagues in the House, I have introduced our Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, which seeks to reunite World War II Filipino soldiers with their children, so that we can honor those living in our community who fought to protect the free and open Indo-Pacific that we have today.

Each and all of these lives of achievement are but a small sampling of a broader community that has achieved so much and contributed so much to the rich fabric of our country. And the story of Filipino Americans is still in its early chapters.

It is fully appropriate that we again honor our Filipino American community whose story is a quintessentially American story.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I join colleagues from both parties in focusing attention on what is truly one of the quietest and most avoided crises in America today. I speak very directly of our Federal budget and, in particular, its unsustainable, crippling Federal deficit and debt.

This silent but accelerating crisis threatens all of us, not only these generations, but generations into the future. This crisis is all of a fiscal crisis, an economic crisis, a social crisis, and a security crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it is a crisis that we are, frankly, busy denying. We are certainly avoiding it and explaining it away, but I think we all know instinctively in this country, and some of us know very consciously in this country, that it is an imminent crisis.

Tonight, colleagues of both parties and I, all of us members of our Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, which has 87 bipartisan Members of the House who are committed to facing and solving this threat, want to discuss this issue in a very brief discussion to assure we do not keep sweeping this crisis under the rug.

We will highlight how our Federal finances work, what is going wrong and why, what are the severe consequences if we don't correct the cause, and what can we do about it.

I will go into details later, but I first want to invite my colleagues to share some of their concerns and perspectives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a member of the Budget Committee, an accounting and fiscal management professional before his time in Congress, a

member also of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and someone who knows his way around the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for highlighting not only the overall crisis, but certainly many of the process concerns that we all have in terms of full transparency and full accountability from the perspective of getting our budget under control.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), an entrepreneur and a small business person herself, a member of the Committee on Armed Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and somebody that also knows her way around a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague so much for her very realistic and eyes-wide-open assessment of our Federal budget, and especially the focus on its impact on our national security from her own perspective in that space because I think we sometimes forget that this is a security risk, as well as a risk elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the co-chair of our Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, a small business person himself in his prior life, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and a leader in this area.

I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's leadership very much. Not only do we agree on the destination, but we agree on the problem. When you can agree on what the problem is, you can usually get to a solution. What we need to do is all agree on that problem on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Utah (Mr. Moore), a steering committee member of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, another small business person, and somebody who also knows his way around a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank so much my colleague for his leadership, as well. I really appreciate his highlighting the intergenerational consequences of not solving this issue today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleagues spending the time here tonight.

Now, I will go back and add a little bit of detail, so that we can fully illustrate what the issue is, how we got here, what the consequences are, why we need to do something about it, and how we do so.

The first thing I will start with is something very basic, and that is: How do our Federal finances actually work? First and foremost, our Federal finances are no different in concept than our family or business budgets, fundamentally.

In our Federal finance situation, our taxes and fees create revenues for our government. Our programs create the expenses for our government. If the revenues exceed expenses, we call that a surplus. If expenses exceed revenues, that is a deficit. We calculate both revenues and expenses and surpluses and deficits on an annual fiscal year. When we are talking about a deficit or surplus, we are talking about what happened in a particular fiscal year.

How do we address a deficit if we have it? It is easy to understand how we deal with a surplus. We spend the money that we got and, hopefully, save up a little bit for the next year, just like any family, any business.

What do we do about deficits? We will borrow that money, and we mostly borrow it by issuing government bonds to people around the country and world who want to invest in our government bonds, believing that the United States is the most secure investment in the entire world, but we also borrow intergovernment or, more accurately, intragovernment.

We are busy borrowing, for example, from the Social Security trust fund, which is building up a surplus toward a time when it needs it far more to pay Social Security benefits, and that money is due and owing to the Social Security trust fund.

It creates extra pressure on the Social Security trust fund that money is not being used for Social Security. It is being used for everything but Social Security.

Those borrowings in a family or business setting start to overwhelm you. We, of course, like anybody else, pay interest on what we have borrowed. Our total borrowings at any one time, which are essentially the accumulation of our deficits over time, are our total government debt.

Just like any family or business, it would be nice to have no deficit or debt, but that is not most of us. It is fine to run some debt if that debt is not chronic, if that debt is not just an excuse to be irresponsible and avoid fiscally responsible behavior, and that debt is not too high in relationship to our overall budget or economy.

We measure this many times by reference to our gross domestic product, how much our economy is producing. We calculate a debt-to-GDP ratio, which, if it is too high, starts to overwhelm the economy just like any family or business budget, or if the interest on the debt is not too high in relation to our total budget.

Bottom line, we can afford some debt but not if it starts to get away from us. This is, again, no different in concept than a family or business budget with one exception, and that is we can go on borrowing as long as we want, even irresponsible borrowing, whereas in a family and a business budget, that is going to catch up with you sooner or later.

Now, what exactly is going wrong, and why is it going wrong?

Well, the last year that we had a surplus in our Federal budget was 2001, 23 years ago. We have run deficits every year since then.

This illustrates our deficit track since 2001 down on this side, and you can see that it increased in the middle part of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, during the Great Recession when we had higher expenditures for recovery and lower revenues because we were in a recession.

Then, of course, this big bump right here is COVID when we had to borrow a lot of money, when we had to run deficits in order to bail our country out of a tremendous problem. These 2 years were deficits.

Then we recovered in the post-COVID environment, but now we see it going up again for no real good reason other than that we are running deficits.

We are now at $1.9 trillion per year, and if we carry that out over time, we will see deficits grow to about $2.9 trillion by 2034, not too many years away.

How about our debt?

This is our total debt, and it starts over on the left side back in 1990. We had a pretty level debt increase until the early part of the 2000s.

The last time we had a surplus, we were managing debt. Then it started to take off with that recession. It started to take off more with irresponsible budgetary decisions on revenues and expenses.

The scariest part is the acceleration of this curve right here, which takes us only to about 2022. Our debt was $7 trillion in 2004, $18 trillion in 2014, $23 trillion in 2019, and now, as was already noted, it is up to $35 trillion--23 trillion to 35 trillion in 5 years.

How about the measure of debt to GDP?

As was discussed earlier, that is a really good indication of what is actually happening in our economy. This is our debt to GDP.

Now, you can see this big bulge right here was the highest debt to GDP we have had to date. That was World War II when we had to borrow to win a war. We had to do that.

Of course, the war, aside from being tragic, was not very good for the world economy. We had a real issue, as we always do in a war. This happens from a budget perspective.

Here we see a rapid escalation in debt to GDP in the last 5 to 7 years. This number right here is about 125 percent or 124 percent, which is our highest level of debt to GDP since World War II. Unless corrected, this is what is going to happen. It will shoot up over the next 10 years.

Reference was made by my colleagues earlier to interest that we pay every year on our current national debt. Our annual interest on debt now is up to $892 billion, and as was mentioned by reference, that is more today than we spend on defense or Medicare.

This line is interest, this red line right here. This line is defense extrapolated at the current levels out to 2034 from today, which is right over here. By the way, we all know that we need a very robust defense expenditure to handle the geopolitical challenges that we face. The green line is Medicare.

The point here is unless we get interest under control, it will essentially surpass defense and continue at an increasing gap. Medicare is going up because it is costing more. It is staying up with Medicare, and it is essentially overwhelming our ability to pay for defense and Medicare, crowding out our national budget.

Now, what are the consequences of carrying a very high deficit and a very high debt load? Why does debt matter, in so many words?

Well, I am going to go through this pretty fast. Number one, I already said it. It crowds out other needed spending, defense and nondefense. It reduces fiscal flexibility, especially in crises.

What if we did have another COVID today or tomorrow? What if we had a major expense that we didn't anticipate?

Our debt and deficits would jack up, just as happened during COVID, just as we saw during the Second World War.

The interest rates would jack up essentially exactly when we need to have a fiscally solvent and responsible base to build on. In other words, you have to prepare for crises. When you are not in a crisis, that is the time to get your thoughts in order, and when you go there, that is when you want the flexibility.

It slows economic growth. It creates inflation pressure. It creates interest rate pressure. We have already talked about national security risks, especially with adversaries such as the People's Republic of China, who invest in our bonds.

China owns a tremendous amount of our bonds. That gives China leverage over us. I don't want to be a borrower from China. It disincentivizes responsible budgeting internationally.

Many countries around the world are facing budgetary pressures. If we can't run our own show, how can we ask them to run their own show responsibly?

Finally, it feeds directly into arguments by the PRC and others that are seeking to replace our dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Essentially, what they are saying is the dollar is not a stable, not a responsible, not a secure currency, so let's try our own. We are begging all of these questions right now.

What do we do about all of this?

There are a couple of things we can do. First of all, we can acknowledge the issue, and we can acknowledge the crisis, and we can acknowledge that we have something that we must work on.

Number one, stop looking for marginal, illusory, magic solutions. For those that say we can grow our way out of this, no, we can't.

We would have to have an annual growth rate of somewhere around the range of 10 percent a year, which is absolutely unrealistic for the foreseeable future, for us to solve this simply by growing this economy. Any economist would say that we are doing incredibly well to come even close to 10 percent a year.

We can also stop the bleeding and reduce annual deficits through mechanisms such as paygo, which is a responsible process that we have followed sometimes, and lately not followed, under which whenever we reduce revenues through tax reductions, we have to offset them with expenses or revenue somewhere else or vice versa. Whenever we increase a program cost,

we have to pay for it or else reduce another program cost so that it is budget neutral.

We obviously need to rebalance revenue and expense over time in our tax and spending policies with major decisions coming up.

Finally, as was mentioned, we probably need some major help with a fiscal commission. A fiscal commission can help us to sort through this in a nonpartisan, apolitical way to provide the expertise necessary to make recommendations that we must take a look at.

To those that criticize fiscal commissions, I would pose the question, well, what is your solution, then? Is there a solution that you have that you think would help us to solve this incredible crisis?

In conclusion, for the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, my 87 colleagues and others who believe that this is, indeed, a crisis, we have a couple of steps that we have to go through.

The first step is to stop the denial, which is where we are right now, for this to be an issue in our campaigns, in our elections, for this to be front and center in our public discourse scores.

Then we have to ask, what can we do?

There is plenty we can do.

First of all, we can get through denial and get firmly into step number two, which is to do something about it. Then next, of course, acknowledge that the solutions are hard, but the alternative of doing nothing is and will be far, far harder.

We urge acknowledgment and action both within our colleagues in Congress and especially with the American people as we consider this crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very kind remarks of my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this bill, the Pacific Partnership Act, which aims to broaden and deepen our critical partnerships with our fellow nations of the Pacific.

I first thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from American Samoa (Mrs.

Radewagen), and our 24 bipartisan cosponsors, as well as

our House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported out

this bill unanimously.

Our country's Indo-Pacific Strategy states in no uncertain terms that no region is of more consequence to the world and to everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific. The United States and our allies and partners around the world, who are aligned with an international rules-based order, share the common vision of a free and open Indo-

Pacific, whose governance, priorities, goals, and prosperity are determined by the countries of the Indo-Pacific without manipulation and dominance by malign actors.

This is especially true of the Pacific Islands themselves in the heart of the Pacific, which today face the challenges of increased natural disasters and human and drug trafficking, economic sustainability, threats to democracy, and more.

It is crucial that the United States continue to extend our hand of full partnership in assisting the countries of the Pacific to meet these challenges, as we have for generations.

Our bill, H.R. 7159, advances these goals. It first recognizes that the United States is and has been for two-plus centuries now a Pacific nation and has longstanding and enduring cultural, historic, economic, strategic, and people-to-people connections with the Pacific Islands based on shared values, cultural histories, common interests, and a commitment to fostering mutual understanding and cooperation. It acknowledges that the United States should support the vision, values, and objectives of the Pacific Islands.

This bill requires the President to develop a Strategy for Pacific Partnership that will set the goals for United States' engagement with the Pacific Islands, assess the threats and pressures to the region, and a plan to address such threats, and analyze the needs and goals of the Pacific Islands in the context of the national interests of the United States.

Critically, our bill requires a strategy to be developed in full consultation with the governments of the Pacific Island countries and their multilateral organizations, ensuring that the United States supports the priorities of, by, and for the Pacific itself, and not of other countries who may be pursuing inconsistent priorities.

Our bill also extends diplomatic courtesies and traditional protocols to the Pacific Islands Forum, the primary multilateral organization of the region. The Pacific Islands Forum engages in critical consensus- building work and just held its 53rd Leaders Meeting in Tonga 2 weeks ago in which Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell led the United States delegation.

The extension of such diplomatic courtesies will foster creation of a Pacific Islands Forum mission to the United States, which will strengthen the collective voice of the Pacific internationally in opposition to other attempts to divide and isolate the Pacific Islands, and further expand our relationship and collaboration on strategic matters of mutual interests.

Finally, as has been noted, our bill requires increased collaboration with our partners and allies in the region, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and more, ensuring the most efficient and effective use of limited resources and programs. This is critical, as we are much stronger when we do this important work in coordination with our allies and partners.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the Pacific Partnership Act.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I read this amendment carefully, and what I saw in this amendment and the policy choices that it engages have nothing to do with what I just heard from the proponent of this amendment, so let me deal with the merits of this amendment as it stands and as it relates specifically to the Department of Defense.

This amendment in that context is just another in a long line of initiatives by my colleagues to drive out of the Department of Defense any concern for, much less mention of, anything bearing the name of or in any way implicating the dreaded phrase ``climate change.''

Based on this amendment, this apparently includes any reference to consideration of greenhouse gas emissions or extreme weather risks in Federal procurement. All this is despite the fact that the DOD itself is eyes wide open to the realities of climate change, as we have seen repeatedly in this debate.

Let's unpack the real amendment here and ask ourselves what it actually does. Very directly, first of all, this amendment would defund any requirement by DOD that greenhouse gas emissions or climate-related risk be disclosed by companies doing business with the Department of Defense.

It is nothing new to utilize Federal procurement to address broader concerns, especially when the largest procurement office in the Federal Government is the Department of Defense. Therefore, the only real conclusion to be reached from the amendment is that greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks are not broader concerns, nor are they concerns, certainly, to the Department of Defense. In fact, for the Department of Defense in Federal Government contracting to look at this amendment, those can't be factored in at all. They can't even be known.

Let's just take a couple of examples, and let's assume everything else. Let's take out of this argument the false argument that somehow it is going to detract from quality, cost, quantity. Let's equalize that, which is all part of Federal procurement anyway. Let's just look at the amendment itself with DOD requirements in some real examples.

Let's take an example. One proposed contractor is utilizing the dirtiest, largest emitting, most unsustainable forms of energy for a product while the other--quality, quantity, productivity, everything else equal--has invested in clean energy consistent with international emission targets, not to mention our own targets.

Should we factor that in at all in Federal procurement? Should we even know that? Should we effectively penalize the company that is doing the right thing and incentivize the company that is not? I think the answer is that we should know it, and we should factor it in.

Let's take another example. One contractor has fully disclosed any risks of extreme weather conditions on its business model, its financial stability, its climate-related resilience preparedness, and the continuity and predictability of operations on key supply chain components, while the other has ignored the obvious concerns that may lead to disruption of key components and higher costs, unexpected costs in the procurement cycle, and fiscal insolvency.

Should we factor that in? Should we even know it in Federal procurement? I think the answer is yes.

Clearly, in both instances, realistic and prudent defense procurement, not to mention compelling national policy, says yes.

This amendment, at the end of the day, is grounded in the incorrect assumption that a strong defense industrial base is fundamentally incompatible with cleaner, sustainable energy and climate resiliency. That is not correct. We know that, and the Department of Defense knows that.

The Department of Defense, moreover, knows that if we don't address climate-related risk around the world in all parts of its operations, from operations to readiness to procurement, it faces greater risks. Let's let the Department of Defense address these issues without weighing in with denial, diversion, and fear-mongering.

Mr. Chair, I urge that we oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, let's read the amendment. There is no mention in this amendment of this mysterious company. There is no commitment by the Department of Defense to use a specific company. This is a matter of disclosure. These companies have to disclose this information to the Department of Defense.

This is also still a proposed rule, and certainly there is enough time in the process for us to carry out any concerns over directed sole sourcing or national security, which I think is just a red herring.

Of course, this is about climate change. Of course, this is about a continued effort to deny climate change.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure as currently drafted. I do so with true regret because hidden inside all of the rhetoric and surplusage of this measure as drafted is, in fact, the foundation of a solid and responsible bill to fund our national defense as our chair and ranking member have both highlighted.

This is very regrettable overall since our national defense funding measure has largely escaped these diversions and focused on national defense. However, instead, we have before us today, in reality, a proposal that is crippled by avoidance of inconvenient realities, sacrifice of long-term goals for short-term expediency, pandering to extreme viewpoints, and to my friend and colleague, the chair's comments in opening statements, too narrow, I believe, a definition of warfighting and military readiness.

Especially telling in all of this is that in virtually all of these categories, our military disagrees with the deletions, with the cuts, and with the initiatives.

Our military has a broader view. Our military, I believe, does have the proper perspective on the panoply of efforts that are required for true warfighting and military readiness.

There are many, many examples. We are going to hear about them. We already have. We are debating them in amendments, but I want to highlight two that are perhaps small in the big picture but that I think illustrate exactly what the issue is that we face with this particular measure.

First of all, I would highlight environmental remediation. Our military is, obviously, out there in our country and in our world, and their activities have consequences to our environment. They are charged with avoiding those consequences and with remediating where there are consequences. Yet, this particular bill would slash the environmental remediation and restoration activities budget, which is a small part in the big picture of the Defense Department's budget, by somewhere around 10 percent. This is of great concern to all of us because this is part of warfighting and military readiness.

I would just cite a small example of this to make the point. In my home State of Hawaii, a major center of our military activities on the island of Maui, on the top of Mount Haleakala, the largest mountain, there is an effort by the U.S. Space Force to build seven small telescopes that are critical to the national defense, as anybody who knows this knows. In the vicinity is an Air Force facility at which there was a fuel spill. That fuel spill is being remediated by the Air Force right now. It is critical. The Air Force is committed to remediating it. It obviously needs the funding to do so.

Whether the military, through the Air Force, does, in fact, remediate fully, fairly, and completely is a major issue to the community in whether they will support critically important Space Force telescopes. There is, obviously, a direct line in terms of the efforts to remediate to a national security interest, which I think we would all agree is truly in the range of military readiness.

Another small example is the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration program, or REPI, which includes the acquisition of real property interest in land from willing landowners to prevent development and encroachment around our military facilities. It fulfills the military's own desire to protect native habitat and improve our military installation resilience to climate change and extreme weather.

This program is also the subject of the budget cutting knife under this program. The military wants REPI. They realize the benefit of REPI to their military readiness, to their warfighting capability. These, again, are very, very small examples, but I hope that they illustrate the basic point that when we take a look at the larger Defense budget, if we allow ourselves to get distracted, to exercise on denial tendencies, to focus on the short term without contemplating the long term, by taking extreme viewpoints into these areas, and, again, by constructing too narrow a definition of warfighting and military readiness, then we are going to miss the mark on this Defense budget. Mr. Chair, I believe in this draft we, unfortunately, have.

Luckily we are early in this process. I think there is plenty of room for us to debate and discuss these issues. I very much hope that we correct these deficiencies and that we produce a bill, as I hope and believe we have in the past and will again, that I can support.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, first of all, let's take a look at the actual language of the amendment. I have heard the arguments from my colleague about what this amendment does, but when you take a look at the actual language of the amendment, what you discover is uncertainty all over the place.

Let's start with the stated goal of cutting climate research from the Defense-wide research and development budget. Well, this doesn't specify that in the amendment itself. It talks about Defense-wide research and development budget, so I guess that means all Defense research and development that in any way, shape, or form may be linked in some way, shape, or form to evaluating the effects of the climate on defense research and development, so we don't really know what this amendment is doing in that department. That is number one.

Similarly, we have no idea what the increase in the Army's budget for unmanned ground vehicles is really all about. It is just a general increase. On a very basic level, the amendment just fails for lack of certainty and direction to the Defense Department.

However, let's be clear about what this amendment is actually all about. I take for granted that the gentleman, in fact, wants to increase funding for unmanned ground vehicles, but it is at the expense of further climate-related activities within the Department of Defense.

We, of course, had this discussion in the Appropriations Committee. This is a longstanding discussion. Already, this bill fails because it cuts $621 million out of the Defense budget in climate change programs that were in the President's budget.

This bill was screened, scrubbed, and word searched for anything that said ``climate change,'' and what was yielded was any program that said ``climate change.'' I suspect that they found some more somewhere that just had the word ``climate'' in them at this point, and that is where this $4.9 million, in fact, comes from.

We have had the discussion on the merits. This is contrary to what our own military believes is necessary, and I quote again from the Department of Defense's own climate risk analysis, focusing on the Indo-Pacific in this case, where we certainly have these issues: ``In the Indo-Pacific, sea level rise and more extreme weather events complicate the security environment, place key DOD warfighting infrastructure and surrounding communities at risk, and challenge local capacity to respond.''

This is our military talking. This is why our military opposes the reduction of $621 million to start with, much less to conduct any research.

My colleagues need look no further than our activities in the Department of Defense in the Indo-Pacific, in Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Guam, and Palau just to start with, where we are investing billions and billions of dollars.

Shall we not ask what the impact of climate change is on those installations, in those activities? By the way, shall we not provide for resilience, which is basically trying to determine what the actual hardening of those facilities or their activities is? Instead, let's just wipe out research altogether because that is the target here, of course, the research.

This is not the right approach from the perspective of a reasoned military overall. This is not the right approach from the perspective of certainty in terms of what we are designating. This amendment should not be adopted.

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

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

I appreciate my colleagues being focused on the unmanned ground vehicle program, and obviously, that is where they are focused. I would simply make the observation that we can have that debate as a matter of priorities, as to whether we invest in the unmanned ground vehicle program, but we should do it with certainty, with direction. We should not do it at the further expense of any research and development related to the impacts of climate on military readiness and warfighting capabilities.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this measure as it is presented to us. I truly regret that as a member of the subcommittee, I cannot support this bill today, as it does include several bipartisan measures that do deserve our support.

Perhaps the best example of this is the $14.2 billion provided to the Coast Guard, an increase of $1.3 billion over the last fiscal year. This funding does reflect the hard-earned recognition of the Coast Guard's unique role and capability in defending American priorities and advancing our engagement in the face of geopolitical competition, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

The $60 million proposed by the bill will allow the Coast Guard to base another medium endurance cutter in the Pacific. The $1.2 million provided for the Coast Guard's Indo-Pacific workforce project, and other report language and funding provisions for their expanded presence in the Pacific Islands region, are encouraging to see, and they do demonstrate that we can work in a bipartisan manner to get things done.

Despite some sound decisions here and there in other parts of the bill, it remains riddled with misguided avoidance and other priorities that I cannot support. Nowhere is this more evident than in its treatment of the overall subject of immigration in general and securing our border in particular.

The Department of Homeland Security, which has been so vilified by many of my colleagues over the last months and years, needs and is entitled to our support to administer existing laws. Yet, this bill fails to address the wide range of needs that it is mandated to discharge, and to anticipate and set up and advance a realistic discussion of our immigration policy in general and border security in particular.

Here are three examples. First of all, the bill strips $300 million from the asylum program, gutting the Department's ability to address acknowledged and real case backlog and keep pace with new arrivals at the border. We all know that the reality of the border today is largely related to, I believe, required changes in our immigration

and asylum policy. This bill does not allow the Department of Homeland Security to do its job under current law.

It also threatens to severely underfund the Operations and Support account of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and eliminates funding for the Citizenship and Immigration grant program that prepares legal immigrants for civic integration. I am not sure what we are supposed to take from that deletion. Are we supposed to take that we don't support legal immigration and that we don't support civic integration?

It also eliminates the Shelter and Services program, which will withhold the resources needed for American communities around the country working to humanely and safely deal with the challenges of our broken immigration system, the realities of our broken immigration system.

None of this is policy. This is not constructive legislation. This is outright antipathy, in many cases, toward a legal immigration system, it is messaging, and it does nothing to solve anything.

If we think there is a problem--and I believe we all do believe there is a problem with our immigration system in general and border security in particular, then let's talk about it. Let's try to resolve it on a bipartisan basis and then let's fund the policies that we have set. Let's not defund the institutions that are responsible for administering policies that we believe are broken but it is their responsibility to do so right now.

This bill, despite these misguided provisions, does show it is possible to work together in a bipartisan manner, including these very difficult issues on immigration. We should go back to the table and focus on that.

I do look forward to working with our colleagues to amend the bill to remove these harmful partisan policy riders and focus on providing the critical funding needed by the Department.

Mr. Speaker, each May our country celebrates Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month, in recognition of the history, culture and accomplishments of our Nation's historic and evolving AANHPI community.

As the Representative for Hawaii's first Congressional District, I proudly serve one of our nation's largest populations of AANHPIs. Every day I witness firsthand the accomplishments of constituents who are AANHPI small businesspeople, journalists, public servants, healthcare workers, artists, athletes, community leaders, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters and more.

Hawaii's culture is made vibrant by the varied experiences, backgrounds and identities of our people, the majority of them AANHPI. Our country has been enriched by AANHPI individuals from Hawaii like surfer Carissa Moore, scientist Isabella Abbott, sumo wrestler Akebono Taro, mixed martial artist Max Holloway, Olympian Bryan Clay, Kumu Hula Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu, singer Iam Tongi, actor Jason Momoa and so many more.

As we celebrate all that again, this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). CAPAC was established to ensure that AANHPI representation, concerns and needs are reflected in our nation's legislation and to coordinate these efforts with other Members of Congress. All four Members of Hawaii's Congressional delegation in 1994, Representative Patsy Mink, Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Daniel Inouye and Representative Neil Abercrombie, were founding members of CAPAC. I have the privilege of carrying on this legacy today serving as an executive board member for CAPAC and communicating the evolving needs of our diverse AANHPI community at large and the unique needs of the AANHPI community I represent.

Let us this month again acknowledge the role of the AANHPI community in our nation's history, celebrate the work performed by CAPAC over three decades and pursue opportunities to advance AANHPI communities in our policies and priorities throughout the year.

Madam Speaker, this Friday at Kilo Pier, Pearl Harbor, Admiral John C. Aquilino, call sign ``Lung,'' relinquished his command of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and closes four decades of service to our Nation.

Throughout, Admiral Aquilino has exemplified loyalty to his oath. At INDOPACOM, he has been fiercely realistic about the challenge we face and fiercely focused on the path we must take.

His rock has always been his wife, Laura, and their daughters, Jess and Lisa. We owe them a true debt of gratitude.

When he assumed command 3 years ago, Admiral Aquilino quoted Admiral Nimitz doing the same in December 1941 at Pearl Harbor: ``It is a great responsibility, but I shall do my utmost to meet it.''

Admiral Aquilino has more than met his responsibility, and we are truly grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 7061, the Healing and Economic Advancement for Local Businesses in Maui (HEAL Maui) Act, which would provide critical additional support to our small businesses which have been so severely affected by the devastating August 2023 Maui wildfires.

The Maui wildfires caused 100 known deaths, severely injured many others, and displaced thousands of our `ohana (family). They burned over 2,500 acres of land and destroyed over 2,200 structures, including homes, businesses and historic landmarks. The full resources of our federal, state and local governments and communities are directed at recovery across many fronts.

My HEAL Maui Act focuses on our small businesses, the backbone of our economy. Our Maui small businesses, and indeed small businesses throughout Hawaii, suffered a ``severe economic disruption'' as a result of the fires and their aftermath. In fact, the State of Hawaii revised its statewide economic growth projections for 2023 and 2024 downward, from 1.8 percent to 1.1 percent for 2023 and from 2.0 percent to 1.5 percent for 2024.

On Maui itself, initial unemployment claims jumped from an average of 130 cases per week before the wildfires to 865 cases in the first week after the fire to 4,449 cases in the second week after the fire. The unemployment rate on Maui rose to 8.6 percent in September 2023.

This economic disruption is hitting Hawaii's small businesses especially hard because small businesses comprise the vast majority of our businesses and employ the vast majority of our workforce. Hawaii is home to over 130,000 small businesses, with the average small business employing just 12 people.

Affected Hawaii small businesses, still burdened with existing COVID- 19 loans, find difficulty matching federal small business disaster assistance programs to actual needs and circumstances. In response, my HEAL Maui Act is a comprehensive legislative proposal designed to offer swift and direct assistance to our small businesses during these challenging times. This legislation builds on the lessons learned from previous crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need to tailor federal programs to address specific conditions in Hawaii and the specific circumstances and consequences of this disaster.

The bill offers three much-needed forms of immediate assistance. First, it would augment the existing Small Business Administration (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program by providing immediate advances to ensure businesses can maintain operations and retain employees. Second, it proposes a new loan program modeled after the Payroll Protection Program to directly address the immediate financial challenges many businesses face in the aftermath of the wildfires. Third, recognizing that some businesses have already taken out SBA disaster loans post-wildfire, my HEAL Maui Act offers a two-year loan deferment given the long duration needed for this recovery.

My bill should be viewed as additive and complementary to the other sources of assistance to our small businesses and their owners and employees. These proposals may not work for all small businesses in their own circumstances, but they do offer further options that may work better or exclusively for some. In that, they are another piece of a very big effort to achieve full recovery across the board from this terrible and tragic disaster. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my House colleagues to join in protecting our world's fragile coral reef ecosystems by restricting international imports of protected ornamental reef fish and coral species collected by destructive and unsustainable practices.

Our oceans are indispensable to life on our planet, not only to our global environment but to the billions that are directly or indirectly reliant on its resources. Our oceans in turn rely on the health and diversity of our coral reefs, some of our most diverse ecosystems, with nearly 25 percent of the ocean's fish dependent on coral reefs for shelter, food and reproduction. And our coral reefs are interdependent with healthy, diverse and sustainable marine flora and fauna.

Among these are prized ornamental reef fish and coral species highly valued by collectors. While it is possible to collect them at sustainable levels which do not harm the coral reef or broader marine ecosystem, high demand leads too often to unsustainable and destructive collection practices such as overcollection of species overall, overcollection of younger specimens, collection through reef-dredging, gill nets, explosives or poison, and harm to specimens leading to excessive deaths in transit. Most of the collection occurs internationally where most of our world's coral reefs are found, in countries, such as in Southeast Asia, which do not have strong regulation or enforcement regimens against unsustainable or destructive practices.

As the largest importer of ornamental reef fish, our country has both responsibility for creating the demand that leads to such practices, and the opportunity to channel that demand to sustainable collection. The Saving Natural Ecosystems and Marine Organisms Act would do so by prohibiting the import into our country of protected reef species taken using unsustainable or destructive practices. The enforcement mechanism would be administrative certification, in conjunction with cooperating collecting countries where possible, that ornamental reef fish and species to be imported into our country were collected without following those practices.

I ask for my colleagues' support of this bill which is one piece of a much larger effort to save our oceans from their own worst enemy: us.

Mr. Speaker, each year our country recognizes October as Filipino American History Month, a time for all Americans to celebrate the incredible past, present and future of our fellow citizens whose heritage lies in the great country of the Philippines.

I am especially humbled to do so as the Representative of Hawaii's First Congressional District, where some 190,000 Filipino Americans live, more than any other of our 435 districts throughout the country. With Hawaii's Second Congressional District that has the second largest Filipino Americans population at about 180,000, our Fil-Am community in

Hawaii stands at 370,000. In total, fully a quarter of all Hawaii residents are Filipino Americans, by far the largest percentage of any state or territory.

We observe Filipino American History Month in October because the first recorded arrival of Filipinos in the continental United States took place on October 18, 1587, when the ``Luzones Indios'' came ashore from the Manila-built galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza in Morro Bay, California. Today, across the country Filipino Americans have a population of approximately 4,400,000 and are the third largest Asian American and Pacific Islander group in the United States.

Many of the early Filipino immigrants were young men who came to the United States seeking a better life. Most found work in Hawaii, California, Washington and Alaska. This first generation of Filipino immigrants are commonly referred to as the Manong generation (Ilocano for first-born male). They worked mostly physically demanding jobs in tough conditions for very little pay. Over the years, they fought against discrimination, found a way forward and made a better future for themselves and their future generations. They became respected members of communities throughout our nation.

The history of the Fil-Am community in Hawaii is particularly rich and echoes the national story. In 1906, the first 15 sakada contract laborers arrived in Honolulu from the Philippines aboard the SS Doric, marking the first sustained immigration into our country and the humble beginnings of Fil-Ams in Hawaii. These first immigrants, those that followed and the subsequent generations eventually became trailblazers in politics and government, the military, business and entrepreneurship, journalism, popular culture, music and the arts and more.

Domingo Los Banos was Hawaii's first Filipino American school principal and a loyal veteran of the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment that fought in the Philippines during World War II.

Carolina Dizon Wong broke a glass ceiling when she obtained an M.D. degree and became the first Filipino American to start a medical practice in Hawaii in 1952.

Peter Aduja became the first Fil-Am elected to public office in the United States when he was elected to the Hawaii Territorial House of Representatives in 1954.

Ines Cayaban was the first Filipino American graduate of the School of Public Health, Nursing and Social Work at the University of Hawaii. She received the prestigious Jefferson Award in 1986 for her service.

In 1994, Ben Cayetano was elected the Governor of Hawaii, becoming the first Filipino American governor of a state in our union.

In 2019, Roy Macaraeg became the first Fil-Am to become a general officer in the history of Hawaii's citizen soldier ranks.

In Hawaii, we also regularly honor the over 250,000 Filipinos who answered the call to protect and defend America and the Philippines in the Pacific theater. In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act to bestow Congress's highest honor upon those veterans. With my colleagues in the House, I have introduced our Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, which seeks to reunite World War II Filipino soldiers with their children, so that we can honor those living in our community who fought to protect the free and open Indo-Pacific that we have today.

Each and all of these lives of achievement are but a small sampling of a broader community that has achieved so much and contributed so much to the rich fabric of our country. And the story of Filipino Americans is still in its early chapters.

This is why it is important that we take the time to recognize groups like Filipino Americans. The story of Filipino Americans, and to an extent, the stories of all of our various ethnic groups, is the story of America. From very humble beginnings, they have risen through hard work, sacrifice, commitment to advancing the next generations and mutual support to achieve so much already. That well describes Filipino Americans overall--embracing the responsibilities and opportunities of America while honoring and treasuring the rich heritage of their ancestral homeland.

All of this is why I joined my friends and colleagues Congresswoman Michelle Steel, Congressman Bobby Scott, Congressman James Moylan and others in introducing this bipartisan resolution to express support for the designation of October as Filipino American History Month. We urge our colleagues' support to promote an ongoing appreciation of the contributions of Filipino Americans to our country and the rich diversity of our nation.

To Fil-Ams everywhere, ``Maraming Salamat Po'' and ``Dios ti Agngina''--congratulations. I truly look forward to partnering with them on their next proud chapters.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this measure, and I must say to my friend and the chair of the subcommittee and to my majority colleagues that it is deeply frustrating and deeply regretful to have to stand in opposition to a bill that, in so many ways, is a very good bill.

My colleague Mr. Garcia reflected in his comments just now on many provisions of the bill with which I can agree. This bill does great things for the Indo-Pacific. It is eyes wide open to the threat of China. It funds the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. It provides for strengthening our relationships with allies and partners. It helps our servicemembers.

There is so much good in this bill, so what is so frustrating is to see it infected with the same kind of partisan provisions and divisive issues that, for a long time, have not been a part of the Subcommittee on Defense. This has been a refuge of sorts from the culture wars, from the division that we have seen elsewhere. It now no longer is, and this is the consequence.

The consequence is division in the Department of Defense and in our relations with and review of the Department of Defense, which should not be infected by these areas for a Department that is, again, very realistic about the threats we face.

My colleagues have talked about a lot of these issues already that create fatal flaws in this bill, but I am going to focus on one, and that is climate change. Oh, no. Let's not say those words, ``climate change.'' Somehow, we are all supposed to react to this as if it is some kind of thing that we can put up on the shelf.

The Department of Defense does not ignore climate change. The Department of Defense has had its eyes wide open for decades now on the risks of climate change.

We can go back, for example, to January 2019, which is one of its most recent reports. This is a report from the DOD, ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense.'' Is that a better way to say it?

I quote from the executive summary: ``The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to the Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and installations. Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors. . . . To achieve these goals, DOD must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and natural events. To that end, DOD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission planning and execution to build resilience.''

That is pretty realistic on the part of the DOD. This is followed up by very definite reports, including the ``Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Plan'' from September 1, 2021; the ``Climate Adaptation Plan 2022 Progress Report''; and the ``Climate Risk Analysis,'' October 2021.

DOD is not ignoring this issue however you want to label it, nor can it. Shall we ignore the rise in sea level at Pearl Harbor, where we are investing billions and billions of dollars? Shall we ignore the consequences to Guam from hurricanes? Of course, we need to do this.

Let's get away from this approach of defunding climate risk analysis in the DOD.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I am reading the text of this amendment, and it says here none of the funds appropriated may be used for the purposes of teleworking or remote working for any employee or any contractor of the Department of Defense on a regular and recurring basis.

That seems pretty excessive to me.

Now, I would agree with my colleague from Wyoming that certainly telework presents opportunities in some cases for abuse just as regular work does, but we are living in a new world. We are living in a post- COVID world.

There is a place in our workforce for regular work, which is not so regular anymore, and there is a place in our world for telework.

I can certainly envision legitimate purposes for an employee or a contractor of the Department of Defense to engage in telework; for example, particularly, a valuable contractor who does, in fact, choose to work at home and that contractor's services are desired by the Department of Defense.

Why should we limit the Department of Defense in its ability to utilize telework if and as appropriate? By the way, it may be not only about the efficiency of the work, but it may be more cost effective. It may be more cost effective for that work to be engaged in from the telework perspective. We have the technology to do that.

There are a lot of ways that we can provide for work. We are obviously in a significant recruiting and retention challenge for the Department of Defense, and if the Department of Defense wants to engage in telework or offer that as an alternative to satisfy its own needs, I see no reason to provide an excessive amendment that essentially rules out an entire option that is available really to the rest of our society.

Madam Chair, for those reasons, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my friend and colleague, Mr. Calvert, Main Street small business is engaging in telework today. It is finding the opportunities to utilize telework where appropriate. Main Street government is engaging in telework where appropriate.

I completely agree with the concerns for telework in a national security environment. Presumably, if one was exercising flexibility from a responsible perspective, one would not engage in telework, especially in the national security area.

Obviously, we have a great part of our Federal Government that does not engage in national security directly. Why shouldn't the Department of Defense have this particular flexibility?

Again, the excessiveness of the amendment and the no exceptions at all nature of the amendment, I think, advise against it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my colleague, I am simply reading the language of the amendment, ``on a regular and recurring basis.'' There may well be suitable reasons why telework would be advisable on a regular and recurring basis which is not health related and not very specifically narrow as she has pointed out.

We have belabored this point long enough. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, suitable oversight of telework by the DOD is appropriate. It is something that we should engage in. To foreclose it under all circumstances, I believe, is unwise.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I just heard my friend and chair of the subcommittee say something that I completely agree with, which is we need real solutions to immigration and the border crisis, and that is true. This takes a piecemeal approach that is unnecessarily broad and unnecessary in general.

To our knowledge, there is no current or planned use of active military bases to support DHS' need for temporary or long-term detention of migrants crossing the southern border. Certainly, if the claims by my colleague from New York are correct, that is worthy of debate.

However, the amendment goes much further than that particular point. It says that the military cannot provide any assistance to the Department of Homeland Security to house persons on a military installation. Therefore, we have to ask the question: Is that too broad in an amendment?

Let's take a look at a couple of examples or at least one example in particular. It would apply in that case to governmentwide efforts like Operation Allies Welcome, which was the evacuation of Afghan refugees after the collapse of the government in Afghanistan in 2021. The DHS at the time worked with the Departments of Defense and

State to use military installations to temporarily house Afghan refugees fleeing imminent danger and persecution. This was a critical tool to save lives.

There are, I am sure, other situations that we can envision in which we would want to access our military installations for very tailored purposes, with congressional oversight, that are under the control of the Department of Homeland Security.

If we want to have a debate over immigration, let's have it. If we want to recognize that we have a real problem, I am the first to recognize that, as well. The amendment certainly takes a very broad approach to a problem that I think we can all agree is definitely a problem and rules out many other situations that, in all honesty, we would want the discretion for the DOD. It is much better for Congress to retain that discretion to the DOD where necessary for national security purposes with congressional oversight and with very tailored congressional restrictions.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, I think we are trying to confirm whether or not Floyd Bennett Field is, in fact, a military installation within the definition of the gentleman's amendment.

That point aside, again, I would say that if we are trying to solve the particular issue that my colleague and friend from New York is trying to solve, let's try to solve that one. Let's not do so with a blunt instrument that takes away discretion across the board for legitimate uses of military installations under congressional oversight, such as the Afghan refugee situation.

We can talk about this on the floor. Yes, it is completely necessary to discuss and debate this, but let's not overplay this so that the DOD never has the flexibility to have any military installation used for legitimate purposes that we would all agree with.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we have confirmed, to the prior amendment, that Floyd Bennett Field in New York is not a military installation.

Do we not value diversity in our military? That is the question in this amendment.

Does it matter that we have a diverse military? Does it matter or not?

Do we not value equity in our military? Does it matter?

Do we not value inclusion? Do we want a military that represents our society or just a slice of it? That is the question.

If you say that you value a diverse, equal, and inclusive military, if you say that that is of value to you, it doesn't happen automatically. It takes effort.

That is why our military leaders over a long period of time now have valued the investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion. They understand that a military that reflects the society that we live in values our military and accelerates, enhances, and improves the overall service that it provides. They understand that that military in that situation will be supported by the American people.

They understand that it will be respected around the world where many other militaries of our partners and allies around the world do value diversity, equity, and inclusion. They don't have these debates in their parliaments and congresses. They don't face these attacks on the attempt to value these attributes within our military.

We need to back those up, and yes, that does take an investment. Where you think that those efforts are wrong, where you think they have gone too far, where you think that they are somehow affecting military service, then go ahead and oversee those efforts.

Your solution is to cut the funding from all of them because you don't

value these attributes in our military. You think that valuing these attributes leads to a weak military. I heard you say that. I don't agree with that. That is fundamentally not a position that we agree with.

From our perspective, again, to take a blunt instrument and wipe out an entire department that values efforts that will improve military service, and, by the way, improve military recruitment, I hope the author of the amendment agrees that military recruitment is a major challenge for our military.

Yet, let's just say to whole parts of our society, sorry, we don't value you at all because we are not going to take care of trying to provide for diversity, equality, and inclusion. That is the wrong approach.

Fundamentally, this is a difference in policy. It is a difference in goal. Apparently, it is a difference in assessment of what makes our military strong and will continue to make it strong.

For those reasons, I have to strongly oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, obviously we have a difference of opinion here.

I would also submit that the leadership of our military have a difference of opinion with the perspectives expressed by the author of this amendment.

Again, they understand the values of pursuing a diverse, equitable, equal, and inclusive military. They understand the challenges of a military that is not representative of the American people. They understand the need to provide for that investment.

Again, we can oversee this particular effort. We can question particular representations of that policy. To take a blunt instrument to this entire effort and defund it and say that it has no value at all, that is what is objectionable in this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, again, we have an amendment that would want us, apparently, to occupy some other state of reality as opposed to the world as we have it today.

In that world, we do have transgender individuals who need help, children whose parents are looking for the right courses of conduct for them.

This measure would say that those parents do not have the right to make those decisions in consultation with their doctors and with their children.

Further, what this amendment says is that those parents need not apply to join our military because they will not be welcomed there with the decisions that they need to make for their families.

This amendment that cuts gender-affirming care options for servicemembers' children will drive individuals out of the military, prevent recruitment to start with, and is, frankly, needlessly cruel. These decisions should be reserved for parents and their children.

I hear all the time from the other side of the aisle talk about parents' rights--all the time. Parents should have the right to make these decisions.

Is there an exception for military families? Parents get to make these decisions, but by the way, if you are a member of our military, you don't get to make these decisions.

This is a very personal decision for parents to make with their families, with their children, and with their doctors.

It is probably, in all honesty, unconstitutional as courts believe healthcare bans like this violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but let's just leave that aside and talk about the policy.

Is the policy wise to say to servicemembers and their families that they cannot access care that is provided to them in a non-servicemember world?

I think that is the wrong policy, so I oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first of all, we can certainly debate the efficient use of our funds for expenses and the cost, but I strongly suspect that my colleague's objections in this amendment do not relate to cost but to a judgment about what should and shouldn't be provided to our military families.

Now, we can have this debate about transgender care for our military servicemembers, and the debate will look something like this one, but this particular amendment would ban any care for minor children.

What this amendment would do is to say to our military servicemembers, you cannot have the full range of recognized medical options for your children that are available in a nonmilitary setting.

That is what this amendment would do. This is about children. It is about parents making decisions for their children.

This is a situation where that decision should be left to the servicemember parents who have a choice as to whether they serve in the military or not, have a choice as to whether to join the military or not, or stay in the military.

We should provide them the same basic rights and options as are available in the private sector. Otherwise, aside from not being fair to them, in my estimation, we also will not have a strong military because they will choose not to join or to stay in.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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