[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4392-H4401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1435, PRESERVING CHOICE IN VEHICLE
PURCHASES ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4365, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 680
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1435) to
amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the
sale of internal combustion engines. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4365) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
Sec. 3. (a) No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in
section 4 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments
described in section 5 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 4 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 5. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez), my very good friend, pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 680.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Rules Committee met and reported out a
[[Page H4393]]
rule, House Resolution 680, consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024, under a structured
rule.
It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their designees. It also makes in order 184 amendments; more than 75
percent of those eligible for consideration. Finally, it provides for a
motion to recommit.
I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, our democracy remains a beacon of hope to the entire
world. Billions of people across the globe look to the United States as
a leader in freedom and liberty and as a protector of peace. From the
very moment our Nation was conceived, a strong national defense has
been a differentiator of democracy. Essential to protecting the
homeland, international order, and the American people from those who
would seek to do us harm, we must never lose sight of the need to
maintain a strong defense.
Although our men and women in uniform give of themselves every day,
they cannot do their jobs unless Congress does its job. Only Congress
can provide the funding our military needs to fulfill its duties. That
is our responsibility. Today we move forward with that commitment as we
take up H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2024. We must do our duty and make sure that our brave
military members can move forward with theirs.
With evolving threats, we continue to face a struggle seen throughout
time. The contest between freedom and tyranny is not far from us. From
Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion of Ukraine, to China's
posturing in the South China Sea, to continued threats posed by
extremists and terrorists, hostile actors are looking for weakness.
Yet, America's Armed Forces remain ready to meet any challenge wherever
it may arise. Continuing to meet those threats requires an appropriate
investment of national resources. With today's measure, we fulfill that
commitment and ensure that our Armed Forces will have the resources
they need to meet any foe anywhere in the world at any time.
The bill before us provides full funding for the national defense. It
appropriates $826 billion in new discretionary spending, which is a
modest increase of $300 million over the President's budget request and
nearly $29 billion, or 3.6 percent, over the fiscal year 2023 enacted
level.
H.R. 4365 makes targeted investments that support critical
priorities. Perhaps the most important of these priorities is to
reinvest in our servicemen and -women. The bill provides a 5.2 percent
pay raise for our servicemembers. For junior enlisted servicemembers,
we provide an historic pay increase of an average of 30 percent,
ensuring that we not only offset the effects of President Biden's
inflationary crisis for these younger and most junior servicemembers,
but also ensuring that we can retain servicemembers who are at the
beginning of their military careers.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, not to give credit to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Mike Garcia), my good friend and fellow defense
appropriator, for this particular measure, both in the appropriations
bill and, frankly, in the NDAA, as well. His work on behalf of younger
servicepeople has been exemplary, relentless, and effective.
The bill also makes continued and necessary investments to ensure
that we will continue to have the best equipped and best-trained
fighting force now and into the future. We fund continued expansion of
the Navy, making sure that we will be able to continue to protect
freedom of the seas around the globe and fund development and
acquisition of next-generation weapons systems.
However, it doesn't stop there, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4365 also ensures
that the Biden administration cannot continue to put politics ahead of
national security. It preserves existing and longstanding bipartisan
bans on taxpayer funding for abortions. It also ensures that Federal
dollars cannot be used to indoctrinate our troops with progressive
ideology like critical race theory training, and instead ensures that
the Pentagon's focus is where it should be: on military readiness and
preparedness so that our warfighters can defeat aggression and defend
freedom anywhere in the world.
All in all, there is much to like in today's bill, Mr. Speaker. I
look forward to advancing this measure through a robust amendment
process on the floor and onward to final passage. I urge Members to
support both the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Cole for the dignity
and respect that he shows each of his colleagues on the Rules
Committee. It is a great honor to be debating this rule with him this
afternoon.
I must, however, rise in opposition to the rule because we only have
six legislative days left to fund the government, and we are
considering only one of the eleven bills that we must pass to fully
fund our Federal Government.
I completely agree with our chair that our country is a beacon of
hope and that we must, indeed, fund our military in the way that they
need in order to continue to provide that beacon of hope and that
strength that we must communicate both to our allies and those who
would do us harm.
Indeed, America is facing significant security threats from a
rampaging Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and a soon-to-be nuclear
North Korea. Instead of uniting us, however, against those very real
threats, extreme MAGA Republicans are putting Americans at war with
each other with this divisive Defense appropriations bill.
Extreme MAGA Republicans are weakening our military readiness. In the
Senate, Republicans are refusing to allow votes on flag officers, so we
don't have the generals, admirals, and top military officers we need to
lead our troops. Here in the House, instead of passing what should be
and has historically been a bipartisan Defense appropriations bill,
extreme Republicans are inserting the kitchen sink of culture war
issues that we have seen too often.
Indeed, when we talk about women, this bill is another step in their
march toward a national abortion ban. If this bill is enacted, a
servicewoman in a State with a total abortion ban that doesn't have
exceptions for rape would not be able to take leave and get help to
travel to a place like New Mexico where a woman's right to receive the
full access to reproductive healthcare is honored. Fourteen States have
a total ban on abortion. In each of those 14 States, we will find
servicewomen who are honorably serving our Nation.
In addition, this bill sets up minorities and our servicemembers who
are gay, lesbian, and all individuals of the LGBTQ community to
harassment.
At a moment when we know that some of our bases are under threat from
climate change, this bill cuts $714 million from climate resiliency
programs. I have been to our bases in the Pacific islands, and I
recognize that we must have climate resilience if we don't want our
bases to be under water. By giving up on preparing for climate
resiliency, we are giving up a strategic military advantage that we
should take advantage of.
{time} 1230
Instead of focusing on how we can improve recruitment from our
diverse communities in America when we are failing to meet our
recruitment goals, this appropriation prohibits funding for diversity,
equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
We know that people of color answer the call to service at
disproportionately higher rates, and those numbers are not reflected in
military leadership. This bill tells my Latino and Native American
communities they are not valued.
Congressman Neguse asked the Defense Subcommittee chair why he would
cut funding for the chief diversity officer, a position that he had
voted to create. The chair responded that it was the best way to get
attention.
That is how we legislate now, to get attention?
Last week, in the Rules Committee, we tried to remedy some of these
awful and unnecessary riders. Republicans voted our amendments down.
All of these divisive riders harm our military readiness and hurt our
servicemembers, servicemembers who put their lives on the line to
protect us. It is never enough to just thank our servicemembers for
their service. We need
[[Page H4394]]
to provide them with the benefits, quality of life, and respect that
all of them deserve.
These extreme provisions are a trend this year, however. Perhaps that
is the reason we have passed only one appropriations bill under
Republican leadership in the House this year.
This Defense appropriations bill is the only one that we appear to be
considering today. We are not considering a short-term funding package
to ensure our government doesn't shut down. We are not considering
something to cover all the appropriations bills.
Today, we are considering the Defense appropriations bill, and it
should be focused solely on national security. It should be about
making sure our Nation has the best and brightest force. It should be
about serving all the individuals who protect us.
We should be unified in making sure our servicemembers have the
resources they need and the respect they deserve. Instead, this bill
attacks access to reproductive healthcare for our servicewomen and
their families. It devalues the minorities, the Latinos, Black
Americans, Native Americans, who serve and are looking for us to help
them address the racism that still exists, unfortunately.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I begin by returning my deep respect, my deep regards,
to my good friend from New Mexico. It has been a delight to have her on
the Rules Committee, and we have found a lot of common ground working
on Native American issues, where, frankly, she is an acknowledged
national expert. I look forward to a long and good relationship with my
friend.
When it comes to this rule and bill, obviously, we have
disagreements. Let me talk first about the point my friend makes about
timing and how many bills have gotten done and where we are in the
process. There is actually a great deal that I agree with her on.
Sadly, we ought to also remember the Democratic Congress of last year
didn't finish the appropriations process until December. If you looked
at it the year before, it didn't finish until March the next year,
after the end of the fiscal year. Being late around here is not new for
either party, but our friends set the standard last time, I think. We
will see how we end up.
My friend made a comment that we had only done one bill. I will say
that is one more than the Democratic United States Senators managed to
do.
The reality is the Senate didn't produce, under Democratic control,
any bills for the last 2 years--none out of subcommittee, none out of
full committee, none across the floor.
We are dealing with a very difficult body on the other side of the
rotunda. These timing issues, hopefully, we can all get better at this
and work together. I actually think we have something this year in the
debt ceiling agreement that will be helpful in that regard.
The reality is if we don't get our work done by January 1, which is
about the time Democrats got their work done last year, we will have a
yearlong CR with a 1 percent across-the-board cut.
I don't know any appropriator on either side of the aisle who wants
to see that happen. I don't think most people who care deeply about the
defense of the United States do. We have some forcing mechanisms in
place. Hopefully, we will continue to make some better progress there.
In terms of my friend's point about divisive social policy, I will
point out where this started. It is the executive branch that made
decisions to do things much differently than we have done before, and
usually with no consultation with the Congress of the United States.
Most of the things my friend disagrees with we consider corrective of
executive overreach, including violation of the Hyde amendment, which
is essentially, in my view, what the Department of Defense has decided
on its own to do without discussion or consultation with the Congress
of the United States. That is unfortunate. That is something,
hopefully, we can work through and resolve in the months ahead.
I will also say that we are just very different in terms of where we
think the focus ought to be. This bill focuses on weapons acquisition,
training, and readiness. We live in a very dangerous world. We think
there is a big difference, for instance, between climate resilience and
actively pushing climate change legislation, which we believe the
original administration budget does.
We want to refocus on the things that we think matter. We are not
going to beat our adversaries if, God forbid, we find ourselves in a
contest with any of them and our forces aren't well trained, aren't
well armed, and aren't well prepared for the challenges they are going
to face. That should be the main focus of the Department of Defense. We
think the administration has lost its focus. We see this bill as a
useful corrective.
Finally, I point out to my friends on both sides of the aisle that,
quite frankly, whatever we pass, we are going to sit down and negotiate
with the United States Senate and with the President of the United
States. As my friends know, the Democrats control the United States
Senate, and we have a Democrat as the President of the United States.
Wherever we end up, it is going to be a process of give-and-take and
discussion, but it is important that the House have an opening
position.
The last point to make on this is if we get this bill across the
floor--and I do say ``if'' because there is some controversy about
whether or not we will make it, even on our own side. Even though
nobody disagrees with the rule or disagrees with the bill, they have
other points sometimes they want to make. Sadly, it shouldn't be with
this bill. However, my friends never got the Defense bill across the
floor by themselves when they were in the majority. There were too many
divisions and splits within their Caucus to even bring it to the floor.
If we manage to get this bill across the floor, we will actually, in
that single action, have moved across the floor a larger percentage of
the discretionary budget of the United States than my friends were ever
able to do when they were in the majority.
It is a complex bill, over half of the discretionary spending of the
United States. There are lots of barriers and flash points where we
disagree, but it is important that we continue the dialogue and the
motion forward.
I think we have the opportunity, in passing the rule and the
underlying legislation, to do that today, and I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am also thinking about last week's committee hearing
and this discussion about the history of where we were with regard to
the appropriations process. I think there is a very different mood this
year than we had in the last cycle, and that is the fact that Democrats
have never called to shut it down. That is exactly what we are hearing
from Republicans on the other side of the aisle.
We never took that position. We were always trying to work it out,
not shut it down. Even though we might not have passed all the bills by
September 30, we were working across the aisle with our colleagues,
working with the Senate on the other side, so we never had a shutdown.
What we had was constant movement toward an agreement.
Indeed, the passed appropriations bills passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support, both in the Senate and the House. We had hundreds
of Republicans voting with the Democrats to pass the last
appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my
good friend, who I hold in high regard.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a bipartisan amendment that is made
in order and will be offered by Representatives Gaetz and Jacobs to
prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions.
Since 2009, the United States has refused to use, produce, transfer,
or sell cluster munitions. As a Nation, we could take pride in this
decision.
Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. They explode when
touched
[[Page H4395]]
by a soldier, a farmer, or a child. They contaminate an entire field of
combat, and they remain a deadly threat long past the end of a
conflict. Rain and other events can move them from where they first
landed to who knows where.
Yet, the Biden administration recently chose to send cluster
munitions to Ukraine. I condemn Russia's use of cluster munitions on
Ukraine, but two evils do not add up to a greater good. The United
States should not have provided cluster munitions to Ukraine, and this
amendment is necessary to ensure such a transfer does not happen again.
I also support this amendment because it is not specific to Ukraine.
Now that the United States has opened the door to using cluster
munitions, we have no idea where else the U.S. might decide to send
them.
An international treaty exists to ban cluster munitions. Mr. Speaker,
112 countries have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions since
May 2008, and 12 more have signed. Nigeria ratified the convention on
February 28, and South Sudan did so on August 3.
The United States and Russia are not parties to the treaty, and now
each of us has brought these terrible weapons into play inside Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that can undermine the ban on cluster
munitions is the willingness of governments to use or transfer these
terrible, indiscriminate weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Gaetz-Jacobs
amendment and prohibit the United States from any further transfers of
cluster munitions.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I both agree and disagree with my friend from New Mexico
about shutting down the government. I personally could not agree more
with her. I think it is a dumb thing to do. I think it is a dangerous
thing to do.
I have never favored shutting down the government, and I have argued
against it. The tactic doesn't work. I think it won't work this time.
The American people expect us to keep the essential services of
government going while we negotiate and get to a final solution.
I will correct my friend on one thing. The Democrats have shut down
the government. Frankly, they shut it down over DACA in 2017.
Now, I always hand the Democrats this: When they shut it down or do
something stupid, they are pretty quick to realize it, and they back
off. I think they shut it down on a Friday and reopened it on a Monday,
but they did indeed shut it down.
It is simply an inappropriate tool in the toolbox, in my opinion. I
have seen both sides use it. My side, sadly, has used it more. I hope
we don't do it this time.
Certainly, the great majority of our Members and the Speaker do not
want to see a shutdown, and I think they have made that apparent over
and over again.
I hadn't particularly intended to comment on the ranking member's
amendment because I know how passionately my good friend feels about
this. I respect those feelings. Honestly, I respect the feelings of all
those who hold that view.
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with President
Biden when my good friend, the ranking member, is disagreeing with him.
It shows it is not really a partisan issue. I think it is an issue of
judgment.
I have no doubt the President of the United States agonized before
making this decision. It was clearly a decision he did not want to
make, but I think he was compelled by two factors that probably decided
the case for him, although I don't presume to speak for the President.
Number one, we ought to always remember the enemies of Ukraine,
Russia, introduced these weapons on the other side first and was using
those weapons indiscriminately.
Second, Ukraine is using these weapons in defense of its own
territory and its own people in its own territory. That is not what the
Russians are doing. They are aggressively, on the other side, using
these in another country.
Finally, again, just to be fair about the President's dilemma, we
have used an extraordinary amount of ammunition trying to support
Ukraine. I think we have some strains on our own stockpiles, and I
suspect that was part of the decisionmaking. When you are in a war, you
are in it to win it.
Frankly, it was not the Ukrainians or the Americans that introduced
this first. It was not the Ukrainians or the Americans or the European
allies, who were there in vast numbers, that started this conflict. It
is to the advantage of all that it ends as quickly as it can. The level
of casualties on both sides is horrific, but the person who bears
responsibility is Vladimir Putin. Frankly, the country that is the
aggressor is Russia, and I am not going to begrudge the Ukrainians for
getting what they need.
As critical as I can sometimes be of President Biden, I will
certainly not criticize him in this case because I think, in this case,
he reluctantly made a tough decision, a decision he probably didn't
want to make, but I think he made it for the right reasons. Therefore,
I won't be supporting my friend's amendment later on today.
{time} 1245
Although, again, I am glad we were able to make it in order. I think
it is an important issue for us to discuss, and I look forward to a
very vigorous debate on that later this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we just noted, the chair of the committee has once again showed
both his dignity and respect to his colleagues.
I do want to point out that you are right, I did forget about that
72-hour shutdown because it was very brief, and I agree with you, it is
a stupid thing to do. No, I am sorry, I think you said it is a dumb
thing to do, and it is because it causes so much pain for the people
back home. They expect us to do our job, and the primary thing we are
supposed to do is fund our government because it is not just the really
hardworking employees who keep our airplanes flying in the air, who
make sure that our food is inspected so we don't get sick, it is also
the teachers in our schools who receive Title I funding in New Mexico.
So many of my schools receive Title I funding. Those are the schools
that have the fewest resources, so the Federal Government helps them
out to make sure all our children, wherever they live, can get a good
education. Those are the things that will be lost if we shut down the
Federal Government.
I point out that in contrast to the 72 hours, in 1995 under
Republican leadership, 21 days the government was shut down; in 2013
the government was shut down for 16 days; and then in 2018 they shut it
down for 35 days. This is a refrain we hear over and over again. It
happens under House Republican leadership so often as we just saw.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Salinas), a wonderful Member of our freshman class this year.
Ms. SALINAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from New Mexico
for her leadership and for yielding me some time.
Mr. Speaker, each year, hundreds of Oregonians die after overdosing
on fentanyl. This drug has torn communities apart, from Salem to
Sheridan and everywhere in between. It is not just our State. It is all
across the U.S.
Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids account for more than 85 percent
of all opioid-involved deaths in the U.S. This is an issue that harms
all of us, and I think Members of both parties can agree that stemming
the flow of these drugs into our communities is a bipartisan
imperative.
The appropriations process is one of our best opportunities to
deliver critical funding to the organizations and agencies on the front
lines of this fentanyl fight.
Yet sadly, this process has been needlessly politicized by far-right
politicians who would rather notch political victories than policy
ones--and this shameful Defense appropriations bill is a prime example
of that.
By attaching anti-LGBTQ2SIA+ and anti-choice riders to this bill,
extremists in this body have turned what should be a straightforward
funding package into a political wedge issue.
That needless politicization is especially concerning, given that
this piece
[[Page H4396]]
of legislation contains critical funding to stop the flow of fentanyl
into our country.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to let politics stand in the way of our
fight against the fentanyl epidemic. As a new Member of this esteemed
body, I did not come here for political gamesmanship. We should all be
prioritizing people over partisanship.
This is an all-hands-on-deck emergency, and I urge my colleagues to
dispense with their partisan antics and focus on passing government
funding legislation that meets the moment and delivers for all of our
communities.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, there are some areas where I agree with my good friends and
some areas where I disagree. Nobody disagrees on the importance of the
fentanyl crisis and the importance of dealing in any way we can through
whatever means we have with those who engage in trafficking that
illegal drug that has killed tens of thousands of Americans.
Quite frankly, I suspect later this week or next week we will give
our friends the opportunity to work with us on homeland security
measures that will deal with just that.
I would point to, frankly, the abject failure of the Biden
administration to defend the southern border. The green light that has
been put out there is a huge cost for this massive influx of drugs into
our own country.
We passed H.R. 2 on this floor, Mr. Speaker, to try and deal with
that, and we are going to provide our friends with some opportunities
where maybe we can find some common ground. You can be pro-immigration
and pro-border security at the same time. I think this administration
has had a hard time doing that, and quite frankly, most of the policies
that it reversed--whether it was building the wall or remain in
Mexico--from the last administration were effective. You can tell by
the record numbers of illegal entries we have, the record amount of
trafficking we have in drugs, and sadly, in human beings across the
border to know that the Biden border policy, which my friends have
supported, has been a disaster. It is one that, again, we hope they not
only recognize that disaster, but will work with us to correct some of
those measures.
Again, I am going to agree with my friend from New Mexico. I don't
believe in shutting down the government. I know we occasionally have
some people who believe that, although it is a very small number, it
can be a very influential number in a House that is very narrowly
divided.
We are going to provide some opportunities both to our own Members
and to our colleagues on the other side to avoid that and to negotiate
in good faith, but again, I just reiterate a point where I know my
friend and I agree: It is not an appropriate tool. It does not work. I
would hope that we can avoid that.
We also need to sit down and work together where we can, and there
are a lot of areas in this bill that we can work on.
The last point I will make--my friends talk about the conflicts that
we have in the Defense bill--remember, we had a conflict in the last
Congress when my friends in the House tried to unilaterally overturn
the Hyde language, a bipartisan agreement that goes all the way back to
1975 or 1976, as I recall, Mr. Speaker, and when that was struck, there
were less than 150 Republicans in the House, so it was genuinely
bipartisan. It wasn't just something we crammed down.
My friends have changed their mind over the issue of using Federal
dollars for abortion over the years. We have not changed our position,
and we were able to beat that back even when we were in the minority
because, at the end of the day, they couldn't pass the bills without
Republican support.
I think the administration has tried to go around Congress in this
case and use Federal dollars without congressional consent to
facilitate abortion, other than in cases where we are talking about
rape, incest, or the life of the mother. We have no debate over the
appropriate use of Federal dollars in those cases. We do in others. It
doesn't mean people can't travel; we just shouldn't be using Federal
dollars in this area. That is a longstanding principle that I would
argue the Biden administration is trying to subvert.
By the way, it is a principle that President Biden, until 2019 when
he was running for President, accepted throughout his entire career. He
was a champion of that until 2019 when his own party moved so far left
he had to change his longstanding position in pursuit of the
nomination.
Again, this is politics, people are allowed to do what they want, but
please don't chastise us for being consistent with a position we
assumed in 1975 and have not changed. It is our friends who have
changed their mind on this issue, and frankly, it is the administration
that tried to subvert the will and the authority of Congress by moving
around it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The concern that we have with the bill with regards to a woman's
right to be able to determine for herself in conversation with her own
faith, her own family, and her own doctors what kind of reproductive
healthcare she wants access to is the fact that this bill would prevent
servicewomen and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to
obtain an abortion or related services if those services are not
provided where she is assigned.
Remember, servicewomen don't get to choose where they live and where
they work. There have already been multiple legal opinions that using
paid leave and traveling and getting assistance to get to a State where
you can get medical care does not violate the Hyde amendment.
Indeed, the Hyde amendment would allow you to get that kind of care
if you were raped. Well, guess what? In 14 States if you were raped,
you cannot get that care. That would violate the Hyde amendment in a
sense when you cannot get access to it.
Last week in the Rules Committee, Representative McCollum told the
story of a woman in Texas who was told by her doctor that she would not
perform a surgical procedure to remove a dead fetus because of the
State's abortion ban. That servicewoman did not have the options she
was entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the
2023 New York Times article: ``As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians
From Red States, Maternity Care Suffers.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 6, 2023]
As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians From Red States, Maternity Care
Suffers
(By Sheryl Gay Stolberg)
One by one, doctors who handle high-risk pregnancies are
disappearing from Idaho--part of a wave of obstetricians
fleeing restrictive abortion laws and a hostile state
legislature. Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, a family doctor who also
delivers babies in the tiny mountain town of McCall, is among
those left behind, facing a lonely and uncertain future.
When caring for patients with pregnancy complications, Dr.
Gustafson seeks counsel from maternal-fetal medicine
specialists in Boise, the state capital two hours away. But
two of the experts she relied on as backup have packed up
their young families and moved away, one to Minnesota and the
other to Colorado.
All told, more than a dozen labor and delivery doctors--
including five of Idaho's nine longtime maternal-fetal
experts--will have either left or retired by the end of this
year. Dr. Gustafson says the departures have made a bad
situation worse, depriving both patients and doctors of moral
support and medical advice.
``I wanted to work in a small family town and deliver
babies,'' she said. ``I was living my dream--until all of
this.''
Idaho's obstetrics exodus is not happening in isolation.
Across the country, in red states like Texas, Oklahoma and
Tennessee, obstetricians--including highly skilled doctors
who specialize in handling complex and risky pregnancies--are
leaving their practices. Some newly minted doctors are
avoiding states like Idaho.
The departures may result in new maternity care deserts, or
areas that lack any maternity care, and they are placing
strains on physicians like Dr. Gustafson who are left behind.
The effects are particularly pronounced in rural areas, where
many hospitals are shuttering obstetrics units for economic
reasons. Restrictive abortion laws, experts say, are making
that problem much worse.
``This isn't an issue about abortion,'' said Dr. Stella
Dantas, the president-elect of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ``This is an issue about
access to
[[Page H4397]]
comprehensive obstetric and gynecologic care. When you
restrict access to care that is based in science, that
everybody should have access to--that has a ripple effect.''
Idaho doctors operate under a web of abortion laws,
including a 2020 ``trigger law'' that went into effect after
the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to
abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade last year. Together, they
create one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation.
Doctors who primarily provide abortion care are not the only
medical professionals affected; the laws are also impinging
on doctors whose primary work is to care for expectant
mothers and babies, and who may be called upon to terminate a
pregnancy for complications or other reasons.
Idaho bars abortion at any point in a pregnancy with just
two exceptions: when it is necessary to save the life of the
mother and in certain cases of rape or incest, though the
victim must provide a police report. A temporary order issued
by a federal judge also permits abortion in some
circumstances when a woman's health is at risk. Doctors
convicted of violating the ban face two to five years in
prison.
Dr. Gustafson, 51, has so far decided to stick it out in
Idaho. She has been practicing in the state for 20 years, 17
of them in McCall, a stunning lakeside town of about 3,700
people.
She sees patients at the Payette Lakes Medical Clinic, a
low-slung building that evokes the feeling of a mountain
lodge, tucked into a grove of tall spruces and pines. It is
affiliated with St. Luke's Health System, the largest health
system in the state.
On a recent morning, she was awakened at 5 a.m. by a call
from a hospital nurse. A pregnant woman, two months shy of
her due date, had a ruptured membrane. In common parlance,
the patient's water had broken, putting the mother and baby
at risk for preterm delivery and other complications.
Dr. Gustafson threw on her light blue scrubs and her pink
Crocs and rushed to the hospital to arrange for a helicopter
to take the woman to Boise. She called the maternal-fetal
specialty practice at St. Luke's Boise Medical Center, the
group she has worked with for years. She did not know the
doctor who was to receive the patient. He had been in Idaho
for only one week.
``Welcome to Idaho,'' she told him.
In rural states, strong medical networks are critical to
patients' well-being. Doctors are not interchangeable
widgets; they build up experience and a comfort level in
working with one another and within their health care
systems. Ordinarily, Dr. Gustafson might have found herself
talking to Dr. Kylie Cooper or Dr. Lauren Miller on that day.
But Dr. Cooper left St. Luke's in April for Minnesota.
After ``many agonizing months of discussion,'' she said, she
concluded that ``the risk was too big for me and my family.''
Dr. Miller, who had founded the Idaho Coalition for Safe
Reproductive Health Care, an advocacy group, moved to
Colorado. It is one thing to pay for medical malpractice
insurance, she said, but quite another to worry about
criminal prosecution.
``I was always one of those people who had been super calm
in emergencies,'' Dr. Miller said. ``But I was finding that I
felt very anxious being on the labor unit, just not knowing
if somebody else was going to second-guess my decision.
That's not how you want to go to work every day.''
The vacancies have been tough to fill. Dr. James Souza, the
chief physician executive for St. Luke's Health System, said
the state's laws had ``had a profound chilling effect on
recruitment and retention.'' He is relying in part on
temporary, roving doctors known as locums--short for the
Latin phrase locum tenens, which means to stand in place of.
He likens labor and delivery care to a pyramid, supported
by nurses, midwives and doctors, with maternal-fetal
specialists at its apex. He worries the system will collapse.
``The loss of the top of a clinical pyramid means the
pyramid falls apart,'' Dr. Souza said.
Some smaller hospitals in Idaho have been unable to
withstand the strain. Two closed their labor and delivery
units this year; one of them, Bonner General Health, a 25-bed
hospital in Sandpoint, in northern Idaho, cited the state's
``legal and political climate'' and the departure of ``highly
respected, talented physicians'' as factors that contributed
to its decision.
Other states are also seeing obstetricians leave. In
Oklahoma, where more than half of the state's counties are
considered maternity care deserts, three-quarters of
obstetrician-gynecologists who responded to a recent survey
said they were either planning to leave, considering leaving
or would leave if they could, said Dr. Angela Hawkins, the
chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The previous chair, Dr. Kate Arnold, and her wife, also an
obstetrician, moved to Washington, D.C., after the Supreme
Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization. ``Before the change in political climate, we
had no plans on leaving,'' Dr. Arnold said.
In Tennessee, where one-third of counties are considered
maternity care deserts, Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung, a maternal-
fetal specialist, decided to move to Colorado not long after
the Dobbs ruling. She grew up in the South and felt guilty
about leaving, she said.
Tennessee's abortion ban, which was softened slightly this
year, initially required an ``affirmative defense,'' meaning
that doctors faced the burden of proving that an abortion
they had performed was medically necessary--akin to the way a
defendant in a homicide case might have to prove he or she
acted in self-defense. Dr. Zahedi-Spung felt as if she had
``quite the target on my back,'' she said--so much so that
she hired her own criminal defense lawyer.
``The majority of patients who came to me had highly
wanted, highly desired pregnancies,'' she said. ''They had
names, they had baby showers, they had nurseries. And I told
them something awful about their pregnancy that made sure
they were never going to take home that child--or that they
would be sacrificing their lives to do that. I sent everybody
out of state. I was unwilling to put myself at risk.''
Perhaps nowhere has the departure of obstetricians been as
pronounced as in Idaho, where Dr. Gustafson has been helping
to lead an organized--but only minimally successful--effort
to change the state's abortion laws, which have convinced her
that state legislators do not care what doctors think. ``Many
of us feel like our opinion is being discounted,'' she said.
Dr. Gustafson worked one day a month at a Planned
Parenthood clinic in a Boise suburb until Idaho imposed its
near-total abortion ban; she now has a similar arrangement
with Planned Parenthood in Oregon, where some Idahoans travel
for abortion care. She has been a plaintiff in several
lawsuits challenging Idaho's abortion policies. Earlier this
year, she spoke at an abortion rights rally in front of the
State Capitol.
In interviews, two Republican state lawmakers--
Representatives Meqan Blanksma, the House majority leader,
and John Vander Woude, the chair of the House Health and
Welfare Committee--said they were trying to address doctors'
concerns. Mr. Vander Woude acknowledged that Idaho's trigger
law, written before Roe fell, had affected everyday medical
practice in a way that lawmakers had not anticipated.
``We never looked that close, and what exactly that bill
said and how it was written and language that was in it,'' he
said. ``We did that thinking Roe v. Wade was never going to
get overturned. And then when it got overturned, we said,
`OK, now we have to take a really close look at the
definitions.' ''
Mr. Vander Woude also dismissed doctors' fears that they
would be prosecuted, and he expressed doubt that
obstetricians were really leaving the state. ``I don't see
any doctor ever getting prosecuted,'' he said, adding, ``Show
me the doctors that have left.''
During its 2023 session, the Legislature clarified that
terminating an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy, a rare
complication, would not be defined as abortion--a move that
codified an Idaho Supreme Court ruling. Lawmakers also
eliminated an affirmative defense provision.
But lawmakers refused to extend the tenure of the state's
Maternal Mortality Review Committee, an expert panel on which
Dr. Gustafson served that investigated pregnancy-related
deaths. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, a conservative group,
testified against it and later called it an ``unnecessary
waste of tax dollars''--even though the annual cost, about
$15,000, was picked up by the federal government.
That was a bridge too far for Dr. Amelia Huntsberger, the
Idaho obstetrician who helped lead a push to create the panel
in 2019. She recently moved to Oregon. ``Idaho calls itself a
quote `pro-life state,' but the Idaho Legislature doesn't
care about the death of moms,'' she said.
Most significantly, the Legislature rejected a top priority
of Dr. Gustafson and others in her field: amending state law
so that doctors would be able to perform abortions when the
health--not just the life--of the mother is at risk. It was
almost too much for Dr. Gustafson. She loves living in Idaho,
she said. But when asked if she had thought about leaving,
her answer was quick: ``Every day.''
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Because what has changed is that now we have 14
States that have total bans on abortion, so we must do more to honor
our commitment to our servicewomen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This is a
question, Mr. Speaker, of readiness. That is what we believe in. That
is what a Defense appropriations bill is. It is grounded in the
readiness of the most powerful Armed Forces in the world. It is to
ensure that they are ready.
Unfortunately for the Defense appropriations, we are being forced to
put this bill on the floor today by the majority. It is unbelievable
that they would cut vital civilian positions when the department is
struggling to meet its readiness goals.
Civilians are a crucial part of ensuring that our men and women, our
combat soldiers, are ready to serve around the world.
These are hateful policies. They want to undermine and attack the
LGBTQ+ community, who have served in valor. We know them well. They
have served without question. They have worn the uniform without
question.
[[Page H4398]]
It is to stop a logistical provision that has nothing to do with
abortion. It is to allow for that military person to receive
reproductive medical services, which may come to be in many different
facets; to ensure that someone is able to ensure the reproductive life
that they may desire to have.
How ludicrous is it in this emerging, wonderful, diverse Nation that
many look to as a place and a bastion of freedom, that we would
eliminate funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion; that we
eliminate climate change to ensure that our vehicles are well equipped
for the new generation; that we would not ensure, again, that our
personnel, our families get the medical care that they desire?
Mr. Speaker, what have we done in years past? We have provided
Defense appropriations to be able to support our military. We now have
a bill on the floor that is undermining our military. I am saddened by
this. I am grateful for the Triple-Negative amendment that has been
allowed to be in providing for breast cancer, and I look forward to
that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing House
consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act of 2024.
I oppose the rule, and the underlying legislation, for the following
reasons:
1. The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the
Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan
and damaging policies under our noses.
2. The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the
Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who
sit on the very committee this bill originated from.
Mr. Speaker, in order to further promote a culture war, the Members
who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.
First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently
employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the
Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive
healthcare regardless of their station.
Women currently make up one in five members of our military.
Denying them their previously promised ability to check their
reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly
irresponsible.
The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention
amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would
strip away.
Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly
victimized by Republican agendas around the country.
Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with
respect and equality, which this bill does not do.
This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for
gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender
dysphoria.
Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a
serious issue and has led to one in five transgender and nonbinary
young people attempting suicide in the past year.
Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect
the wellbeing of all citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and
ideologies.
The language in this legislation would further embolden those who
wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already
facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.
This is unacceptable.
The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should
not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not
promote the diversity of our Nation but rather seeks to suppress it.
This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way the
sponsors of the bill sought to eliminate Critical Race Theory.
Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this
term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in
education.
Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the
complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society.
Critical Race Theory is not an attack on white people for their
history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.
Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of
government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a
complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash
over the negative to present a false narrative.
At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against
Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate
level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected
accurately in the history of this multicultural Nation.
Another issue with this bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt
military equipment to be more climate friendly.
Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and
efforts.
The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative
source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.
It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric''
fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States
Army.
This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as
well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a
net zero future.
In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51
million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than
most countries.
But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to
scale back on their emissions, certain Members in Congress want to
limit their choice.
One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the
Jackson Lee amendment #233 that was made in order by the committee.
The Jackson Lee amendment #233 seeks to allocate $10 million to fund
triple negative breast cancer research.
This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and
women in the military, who are up to 20-40% more likely to develop
breast cancer.
I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden
administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but
there is still work to be done.
This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day
hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel
affected by breast cancer.
Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active-
duty service-men and -women along with veterans, such as enforcing
accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces,
addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing
authorization for triple negative breast cancer as well as post-
traumatic stress disorder.
I am very proud of the work that Congress and I have done to address
the health concerns of active-duty and veteran service-men and -women,
but there are still improvements to be made.
The men and women who are on the front lines or have already
completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing
issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not
be one of them.
While this amendment is important, the negatives of this bill vastly
outweigh the positives.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Nobody is arguing against diversity in the military. The American
military has actually usually been the leader in this area, whether it
was desegregation or certainly addressing the inequities between men
and women, and we haven't gotten it right, but I think broadly it has
worked in the right direction and quite often ahead of the rest of
society.
The real problem here is we want to focus on training and weapons,
not on culture wars. We think the administration has gone around
Congress in some cases--the Hyde amendment being one of them. My
friends have their lawyers, we have our lawyers. I guess they will go
to court and sort that out.
{time} 1300
There wasn't any consultation with the Congress, any discussion on
this. That was a decision made unilaterally by the administration. I
think Congress has every right to be consulted. They don't have money
by their own right in the executive branch. They have what we give them
for the purposes that are specified by the Congress of the United
States. They don't get to just make it up on their own.
I know there was at least some discussion back and forth where people
warned: Don't open this door without a discussion and without a green
light from Congress. That didn't occur, and so we are in this
discussion.
Now, over the course of reaching a bill, I suspect we will find some
sort of solution or work it through one way or the other. I hope we do,
because I don't think anything is more important, in what I think is a
very dangerous world, than equipping, training, and preparing the men
and women who protect us all.
On that, we have a lot more common ground than division. Again, I
think this was a choice by the administration. It provoked a response
by Congress. We will try to work it through
[[Page H4399]]
by normal legislative means and see where we end up.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the negative
impact that the restrictions on funding for travel to receive abortion
services will have on our servicemembers and their families, women of
childbearing years.
Unfortunately, in the South, between New Mexico and Virginia, you
have a ban on abortion. In some cases total, and in some cases there
are exceptions for rape or the life of the mother, but the mother's
life has to be on the verge of death. Unfortunately, in these States,
they make no distinction between miscarriage management, and they apply
to cases, like you heard, where there has been fetal demise and a
miscarriage. If you do not remove the fetal tissue, then the mother can
go septic and die. If she loses her amniotic fluid and you do not
terminate that pregnancy, she can go septic and die.
I represent a State that has over 170,000 Federal employees and
130,000 Active-Duty military personnel. With the Hyde amendment in
place, we are already telling pregnant people in that situation: You
have to pay for that service yourself. Their insurance won't pay for
it. Many hospitals will consider them uninsured and won't let them have
those procedures in the hospital, so they have to go find a clinic
which, in many cases, is getting harder.
Now, if they are in a State that has banned abortion in that
situation, they have got to, on top of that, pay to travel somewhere
where they can get, in some cases, lifesaving care. In addition, we
have seen that these abortion bans have led to fewer OB/GYNs in those
States.
How are we going to recruit women of childbearing years when we say
to them: If you get the worst news ever in your life, that you have
suffered a miscarriage or you have to choose between your life or
continuing a pregnancy, when you are already willing to make the
ultimate sacrifice to keep this country safe, you are on your own. That
is what this bill with that amendment will do.
Our servicemen and -women deserve better. In a country that already
has an atrocious maternal mortality rate, this will lead to even more
maternal deaths. I don't know how we are going to recruit the women
that we need.
I don't have enough time to talk about how the anti-DEI amendments
will make it harder to recruit a service force that is as fully diverse
as the country they serve, but this amendment, in particular, will be
dangerous for our military servicewomen or families of our servicemen.
That is why I ask that we vote against the rule.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our ranking member on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding so I
can vent a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I just saw a Roll Call story that is reporting that
Republicans are pulling their continuing resolution today to weigh more
cuts. I mean, are you kidding me? Their crummy CR contained an 8
percent across-the-board cut in almost every program that helps people,
everything from medical research, WIC, Head Start, housing. Even border
security is cut by 8 percent. The only thing that is exempt is the
military budget, the biggest bureaucracy in our government.
They are okay with cutting fuel assistance for poor people by 65
percent. Money to help people be able to heat their homes in the
winter, they are okay with cutting that, but they believe you can't
find one penny of savings in a missile system in the Pentagon with huge
cost overruns. I mean, it is pathetic. As the Republican whip said: The
patients are running the hospital around here.
The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is about a negotiation. My
Republican friends can't even negotiate with themselves, and we have 11
days to go before there is a shutdown, and they are going in the wrong
direction. It has become more and more difficult to get to an
agreement.
Enough, I mean, enough. The Republican leadership of this House is
incompetent. They are so incompetent; it takes my breath away. They are
letting the clowns run the circus. It is time the Speaker of the House
develop a spine and stand up to the most extreme elements on the
Republican side and actually sit down and negotiate an agreement that
deals with the reality of our government.
The Republicans only control barely just one branch of our
government, the House. The Senate is under Democratic control. The
White House is run by a Democrat. You are going to have to negotiate,
and you are moving in the wrong direction. Time is running out. Stop
this nonsense. Get serious. Get to the negotiating table. Enough of
this.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have great affection and respect for my friend, the ranking member
and formerly the chairman of the full Rules Committee.
I will start where I began this debate. Remember, my friends,
Democrats didn't finish the appropriations process on their side until
December of last year, and Democrats controlled all three parts of
government. They had the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, and
they didn't get done until December. The year before that, they didn't
get done until March of the year after.
I wish the process went easier and smoother as well, but I don't
think it goes much differently, regardless of who happens to be in
control. I do think that we are trying to make some progress here.
Now, my friends are worried about what is cut. They ought to be
worried about what was spent. We are running a $1.7 trillion deficit.
That deficit is bigger than the entire discretionary budget of the
United States of America. It is not just bigger than the defense
budget; it is bigger than everything.
It got a lot worse when my friends controlled the executive branch
and both houses of Congress. You did over $3 trillion worth of spending
outside the normal appropriations process; $1.9 trillion for an
unneeded American Rescue Plan when we were coming out of COVID, roughly
$700 billion from the much-misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which even
the President now says was misnamed because it really had to do more
with climate change. That was money we didn't have, money that fueled
inflation that made life worse for every single American.
I don't even get to the knockoffs, like transportation bills that
don't pay for themselves. I had voted for every other major
transportation agreement in my time here, two of them under President
Obama, but they paid for themselves either through gasoline taxes or
ticket fees, what have you. Now, we have got a trillion dollars here,
but it is not enough. We will just throw another several hundred
billion dollars on in debt. We are paying for that now.
I am not going to be critical of my party for trying to push down
some of the spending; $1.7 trillion this year. You guys can't find
anywhere to cut.
Now you want to talk about defense? I am happy to talk about defense.
My dad was a career noncommissioned officer at the height of the Cold
War. You know what we spent on defense then? Fifty percent of the
Federal budget, 9 percent of the GDP. You know what we spent during the
great Reagan buildup? Six percent of the GDP, about a third of the
Federal budget. You know what we spend today? About 3 percent of the
GDP and about 15 percent of the budget.
Believe me, there has been an explosion of domestic spending over the
decades, largely driven by my friends, and it is unsustainable. We
cannot stay on the path we are on.
We can argue about this or that. I have a bill I would invite my
friend to look at, try and go back and do with Social Security what we
did in 1983 on a bipartisan basis. We need to start getting the
spending under control. The spending that is driving us out of balance
is largely not in the Pentagon. It is largely in entitlement spending,
which I would be the first to say that both sides have been reluctant
to deal with. Neither of the last two Presidents have been willing.
This President actually voted for a Social Security commission that
reformed and stabilized it when he was a Senator. Now,
[[Page H4400]]
the White House rules these things out. No, we can't talk about it,
can't do it. By the way, his predecessor was exactly the same, so
Republican and Democrat alike.
I would love to be more restrained in the spending, and I think that
is what my colleagues are trying to do, even when I don't always agree
with the tactics they use. They are motivated in the right direction,
which is to deal with a $1.7 trillion deficit.
We are trying to make some appropriate decisions. Again, we work in
the legislative process. I remind my friends, they control two-thirds
of it. By the way, the Defense bill last year, which was passed almost
exclusively with Democratic votes, the omni, to be fair, actually had a
larger increase in the defense budget than my friends pushed, $45
billion--I actually agree with that, by the way--than this year, where
we are basically at the President's number.
We can all play this game with numbers and what have you. Let's try
to work toward a deal. I think we can get there, but I don't have any
illusions it will be easy along the way. I certainly have seen both
sides make missteps, in my view, in handling these situations over the
years. I hope we don't do that again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think what Americans know is that for too long, Republicans have
been protecting the rich and the corporations who do not pay their
taxes. When we start talking about spending, we need to talk about what
we are spending that money for.
Democrats are investing in rural America. They are investing in our
children. They are investing in our infrastructure. What are
Republicans doing? Yes, they are adding to that deficit. Republicans
put $2 trillion on that credit card in tax cuts for the rich.
The leader they worship, Donald Trump, put $7.5 trillion onto that
deficit. The very first bill they brought to the floor of this
Congress, what did it add? $114 billion to that cut.
That is what we need to talk about, not just how they want to cut
investments and important things like heating for our families who need
it, our seniors, and our veterans. What are they doing? They are trying
to make sure that they don't have to tax the rich and wealthy
corporations. Many, as we heard last night, don't pay anything in
taxes.
Yes, we do want to talk about Social Security. I am so glad the chair
brought this up because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans often swear that they
are not going to cut Social Security and Medicare. Last night, when we
met on the continuing resolution, there is an 8 percent cut across the
board for everything but defense and veterans. Their continuing
resolution has a 66 percent cut to heating assistance. They have said
border security is their top priority, but the very CR we are scheduled
to consider cuts funding for DHS by over 8 percent.
While they claim they won't cut Social Security and Medicare, their
own continuing resolution, the language in the bill itself,
demonstrates that nothing is sacred to them.
I am going to offer my friends, my dear friends, a chance to show the
American people that they are serious about preserving Social Security
and Medicare.
I urge you all to join us in defeating the previous question. If we
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
provide for consideration of a resolution which plainly states that the
people's House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that
so many of my constituents, so many of your constituents, rely on.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
{time} 1315
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Mullin) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
majority's manufactured shutdown threat. For this reason, I ask my
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up
legislation that commits to protecting vital programs, like Social
Security.
Our most vulnerable communities will suffer as a result of this
shortsighted attempt to hold our most important Federal programs
hostage. For example, my California bay area district is home to over
127,000 senior citizens, many of whom rely on Social Security.
Under a Republican shutdown, new applicants to the Social Security
program wouldn't be able to enroll in this bedrock American program.
While Social Security payments would continue during a shutdown,
seniors would experience even more delays and lengthy phone queues when
contacting the Social Security Administration. Many seniors already
struggle to find help, and a Republican shutdown would only exacerbate
this problem.
Modern Republicans are playing roulette with essential constituent
services and creating yet another manufactured crisis.
I urge the majority to bring a serious bipartisan proposal to the
table to prevent this avoidable crisis.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think what we need to do is look at this appropriations bill, look
at where we are in our discussions about funding the government and
recognize that nothing exists in a vacuum.
Last night, as we were talking about the Committee on Appropriations,
we were talking about the extreme cuts that are being made, and we know
that our military, when they sort of show up at our bases, they are not
showing up at a base that is not connected to the rest of the places
they live in.
In Clovis, New Mexico, where we have Cannon Air Force Base, and in
Alamogordo, where we have an Air Force base, those communities are
connected, and we need to recognize that the other bills that they are
looking at are going to cut funding in a way that is going to hurt our
readiness.
The Agriculture appropriations bill is a good opportunity to talk
about this. The bill that they have brought forward would fund world
development programs, right? Nope. That is going to get cut. It would
also cut nutrition to women, infants, and children. It would cut the
funding we need for our ranchers and farmers.
Indeed, the cuts that they are proposing would be $8 billion in cuts,
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. This would bring the funding
level for the Agriculture appropriations bill to a level not seen since
2007.
The bill would cut broadband programs by 23 percent. It would hurt
something that is incredibly important to my district, which are rural
electric co-ops that serve 268,403 residents. Well, those rural
electric co-ops, they serve people throughout our districts, and they
serve our military bases. We must fight these kinds of threats.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, we cannot talk about readiness; we cannot
talk about what we need to do in this country to support our military
if we don't talk about our servicemembers and what we must do to
protect them and to respect them, because they are protecting us.
So when we are talking about our servicewomen, we must remember the
number of servicewomen who are serving. It is about 20 percent right
now, and the number of women who are serving in those 14 States which
have a total ban on abortion is significant. It is 80,000 women--80,000
women, who, if something happens to them like what Representative
McCollum discussed, they could die of sepsis.
For those of us who have given birth, for those of us who have had to
make really difficult decisions about our health and how we are going
to deal with the complications of pregnancy, we feel it viscerally,
because we know that it is such a wonderful thing to give birth, but it
is such a dangerous thing to be pregnant.
And what they would do to our servicewomen is deny them the ability
to
[[Page H4401]]
go to a State like New Mexico when they want reproductive healthcare
services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
Today's rule will make in order the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024. It will provide full and
complete funding for our national defense needs, ensuring that our
servicemembers are fairly paid, and supporting the well-being of
military families.
It also makes certain that our troops will never face a fair fight by
giving them every advantage possible. We make appropriate investments
in the development and acquisition of weapons systems needed to
preserve and defend freedom around the globe and restrict the Biden
administration from forcing progressive ideology on the Armed Forces
and circumventing the authority of Congress when it does so.
Bottom line, the bill targets resources to its new core mission,
protecting our homeland and security interests and making sure that our
forces are the best trained, the best equipped, and the best prepared
in the world.
To my friends, it has been an interesting debate, as always. I enjoy
exchanging observations with my good friend from New Mexico, and we
strayed sometimes off this bill and off this rule.
I do want to mention a couple of things. The rule, I think even my
friends would agree, is a pretty robust rule. We are going to have 184
amendments, a very thorough debate, so I look forward to that.
Second, it is lost sometimes, but we actually basically fund the
military at the level that the President requested, so those people who
think it is over the top probably should have their argument with the
White House as opposed to us. Personally, I would have liked to have
done more, but we are going to go with the President's number,
essentially.
Finally, we do disagree about the manner in which the administration
is using the military. We think they are advancing progressive ideology
when they ought to be focused on weapons acquisition, training, and
warfighting, and we think that ultimately weakens the country.
We live in a very dangerous world right now. I would actually argue
we are not spending enough on defense when we look at what is happening
in the Western Pacific with China; when we look at what the Russians
are doing, the acts they are engaged in, in Ukraine. I want a robust
budget, and I want one that we come together on.
In the end, I think we will be able to achieve that, and I look
forward to working with my friends to accomplish that objective.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 680 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
Sec. 8. Clause 1 (c) of rule XIX sha11 not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________