[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2819-H2822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have got a couple of things I want to 
do today, and I would like to start with a very special celebration 
that occurs every spring, and this is the Sikh community's annual 
historic, cultural, and religious celebration of Vaisakhi.
  It is a celebration in the Punjab region of south Asia. It has been 
going on for centuries, and today it is also celebrated in communities 
throughout India, the United States, and, really, around the world.
  Vaisakhi is an annual festival celebrating the spring season, and it 
is of great significance to the Sikh religion. It commemorates the 
creation of Khalsa, a fellowship of devoted Sikhs, and was founded in 
1699 by Guru Singh and celebrates the community, prosperity, and 
continued progress in the year ahead.
  It is springtime, and so we celebrate this very important event in 
the Sikh community.
  I also want to talk about another event of the spring, one that you 
just heard mentioned a moment ago from our colleague, Mrs. Axne of 
Iowa, when she talked about the flooding that is occurring.
  As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Readiness of the Armed 
Services Committee, the question for the U.S. military is very, very 
clear: Is the U.S. military ready for climate change?
  Recent events indicate that there is considerable doubt. Just this 
last year, Hurricanes Florence and Michael caused billions of dollars 
of damage to Camp Lejeune and leveled much of Tyndall Air Force Base.
  Perhaps a photo might be better than my words in describing the 
destruction at Tyndall Air Force Base. Essentially, this key Air Force 
base located on the Panhandle of Florida, on the Gulf Coast, was wiped 
out.
  We don't yet know how much it is going to cost to rebuild it. We do 
know that the Air Force is trying to sustain operations there, and I am 
told that by May they will be out of money to be able to sustain 
operations.
  We know that there is probably $3 to $4 billion of damage at this Air 
Force base alone. Keep in mind that this base is located, literally, on 
a sand spit adjacent to the Gulf, and, when hurricanes come through, 
destruction is sure to occur.
  Every marine knows this place, Camp Lejeune. It, too, was hit by a 
hurricane, not the winds but the deluge that came with the hurricane.
  Flooding wiped out a large portion of the base. As you can see, a 
tree did something that no marine would ever want to have happen, and 
that is to take out their barracks. This base, too, sustained 
substantial damage as a result of the hurricane and the flood that was 
precipitated by the hurricane.
  This is also a $3 to $4 billion event. The rebuilding of Camp Lejeune 
and Tyndall raises a serious question for those of us who must decide 
on the appropriations: Should we even return to these locations which 
we know are going to be hit once again and perhaps multiple times in 
the future?
  And if we decide to return and spend the $3 to $4 billion to repair 
each of the bases, how will it be done? Will it be done in the 
recognition that there is climate change, that the hurricanes will be 
stronger, the deluge even more?
  We must always build for resiliency.
  Now, this isn't the only place that the military has sustained 
significant risk this year. I am from California, and I know wildfires. 
Camp Pendleton, on the far side of this continent, another marine base, 
faced evacuation of the family housing units when fires occurred in the 
hills above Camp Pendleton.
  Naval Air Station Point Mugu and the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare 
Training Center in the Sierra Nevada mountains also had to be evacuated 
as wildfires came down into those areas.
  In addition, beyond Camp Lejeune, beyond Tyndall Air Force Base, we 
know that our coastal installations and their surrounding communities 
are already experiencing significant flooding as sea levels rise.
  The Army's Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at the 
Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific is threatened by sea level rise and is 
not expected to exist in 20 years.
  The Navy's principal Atlantic base, Norfolk/Hampton Roads, and the 
Naval Academy are already experiencing flooding.
  We know that melting polar ice in Arctic regions has already opened 
up new sea lanes and new routes and competition for resources in the 
Arctic Ocean.
  Yet, today, it appears that the Department of Defense has not 
developed a systematic strategy for ensuring that our U.S. national 
interests in the Arctic and, indeed, the protection of our bases, key 
military bases, here in the United States and around the world are 
prepared for climate change.
  I want to give you one more example. It was actually opened in a 
discussion a moment ago by my friend from Iowa.
  Now, this is not Iowa. This is Offutt Air Force Base, just across the 
river from the photo you saw just a few moments ago of the flooding in 
Iowa. It is on the Missouri River. This happens to be the Strategic Air 
Command's Basic Center. This is our nuclear weapons system.

                              {time}  1500

  More than half of the base was underwater, and more than half of the 
base today is not operable. Six years ago, the U.S. Air Force knew that 
this Strategic Air Command base was subject to flooding. Indeed, the 
flooding 6 years ago had come up to the edge of the runway. Last week, 
it inundated the runway and half the base.
  Back to my question: Is the U.S. military ready for climate change? 
It would indicate, from these few examples, that the answer is no. So 
what are we to do about it?
  The United States military is one of the largest employers in the 
world. It is also one of the largest consumers of energy. The 
Department of Defense owns millions of acres of global real property, 
including over 550,000 facilities valued at well over $1 trillion. The 
Department is uniquely situated to enhance its readiness and resiliency 
through effective energy policies, programs, and structures that are 
resilient in the face of climate change.
  Installations, bases, are where we generate the force, where we train 
and sustain them and, in many cases, house critical operational 
missions, such as the Strategic Air Command.
  One way to enhance readiness is to consume less. In fiscal year 2017, 
the Department of Defense consumed over 85 million barrels of fuel to 
power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and contingency bases, at a 
cost of nearly $8.2 billion. In many cases, through contract vehicles 
such as energy-saving

[[Page H2820]]

performance contracts, these energy-saving and resiliency enhancements 
can be made at no upfront cost to the Department of Defense.
  In contested environments, such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, 
better fuel consumption extends the range of, and mitigates the risk 
to, our military. The resupply of energy is one of the most dangerous 
things that occurs in military operations, and resupply convoys are 
targeted. Naval vessels are vulnerable during at-sea replenishment. For 
austere land-based sites in remote locations supporting contingency 
operations around the world, lower fuel and water consumption rates are 
an essential readiness enabler, helping that facility to maintain a 
lower profile at far less risk.
  It is essential that our bases and our facilities recover quickly 
from extreme weather events and from energy disruptions that impact 
mission capability.
  Section 335 of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization 
Act required the Department of Defense to report on the effects of 
climate change on the Department and propose mitigation plans. We have 
that report in hand. Only days after we received it, Camp Lejeune was 
flooded; Tyndall was wiped out; and now Offutt is flooded.
  We are not happy with the report that the military sent to the House 
Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Readiness because that 
report did not meet the congressional reporting requirement that we 
sent to the Department to describe future focused mitigations necessary 
to ensure mission resiliency.
  We are not going to stop. The military is going to come back to the 
committee, and we are going to hammer home the necessity of resiliency 
and the necessity, as every Boy Scout knows, to be prepared.
  What do they need to be prepared for? Certainly, for the missions, 
whatever those might be, whether it is the Strategic Air Command or the 
Marines or the Air Force, but also to be prepared for the inevitable 
effects of climate change.
  To ensure that the military can perform its national defense mandate, 
the Department of Defense must--must--plan for the vagaries and 
exigencies that exist as a result of climate change.
  The ``2014 Climate Change Adaptation Road Map'' that the Department 
put out noted that rising global temperatures, changing precipitation 
patterns, climbing sea levels, and extreme weather events will 
intensify the challenges of global instability. Hunger, poverty, and 
conflict are the inevitable results of climate change and its effects 
on communities all around the world.
  In the Department's words, climate change ``will likely lead to food 
and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and 
resources, and destruction by natural disasters . . . across the 
globe.''
  Not only are these climate-related events impacting installations and 
base readiness, but they are also creating more frequent requests for 
military support for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. 
Active Duty servicemembers, National Guard personnel, and Reserve 
personnel are increasingly responding to assist communities in impacted 
events here in the United States and around the world.
  Climate change presents a myriad of readiness challenges, both here 
at home and abroad. It is not only a future threat. By the events of 
this year and last week, it is an event here and now. It is a threat 
today; it is impacting the resiliency of our installations and our 
operations; and it is seriously impacting the readiness of the 
Department of Defense to meet its challenges all around the world.
  We have our hands full, making sure that our military is ready in the 
era of climate change.


                         Healthcare in America

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Now, if I might, Mr. Speaker, change subjects and pick 
up another issue that is before us today. Joining me in this discussion 
will be Mr. Payne from the beautiful State of New Jersey.
  Just a moment, Mr. Payne. Let me lay out what we are going to talk 
about here.
  Today, the House Democrats unveiled new legislation to protect people 
with preexisting conditions and also to lower healthcare costs. We know 
that, over the last 2 years, President Trump has declared war on 
healthcare, and the Democrats here in this House and in the Senate 
intend to address that by lowering healthcare costs.
  Last night, in a Federal court, President Trump radically expanded 
his monstrous war on America's healthcare, asking the court not only to 
strike down protections for people with preexisting conditions--not 
only asking the court to strike down protections for people with 
preexisting conditions--but also to eliminate the very last protections 
and benefits provided in the Affordable Care Act.

  If President Trump gets his way in the Texas v. U.S. lawsuit, he 
would destroy the ban on lifetime and annual limits of care. He would 
destroy the Medicare expansion and the tax subsidies that make health 
insurance affordable for millions of America.
  On the very first day of the 116th Congress, the House Democrats 
voted to throw the full legal weight of the House of Representatives 
against what President Trump is attempting to do in the Texas v. U.S. 
lawsuit. Thanks to that vote, the House counsel has been able to 
intervene as a party in the lawsuit to argue on behalf of the 
healthcare of the American people. But more than 190 of my Republican 
colleagues stood behind the President in his brutal assault on American 
healthcare.
  Unlike my colleagues on the Republican side, today, the Democrats of 
Congress are introducing legislation to protect preexisting conditions 
and make healthcare more affordable. We are taking another step forward 
to deliver on our promises to reverse the last 10 years of our 
Republican colleagues' effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, and 
to lower the healthcare costs that American families need.
  There are three parts to the legislation: lowering healthcare 
insurance premiums with strengthened and expanded affordable 
assistance; expanding the tax credits that make healthcare insurance 
more affordable to more middle-income families; and making them more 
sustainable to all those who are eligible.
  Point 2 strengthens protections for people with preexisting 
conditions, curtailing the Trump administration's effort to give States 
waivers to undermine protections for people with preexisting conditions 
and weaken the standards for essential health benefits.
  Third, stop the insurance companies from selling junk health 
insurance policies.
  Finally, reverse the GOP's health sabotage that has needlessly driven 
up premiums and uninsured rates.
  We know we are going to have our hands full to get this past the 
Senate and to the desk of the President, but we would hope, as this 
debate develops, as time goes by and Americans realize what they are 
losing as a result of the efforts of the Trump administration and many 
of my Republican colleagues to deny them the healthcare that they 
deserve as Americans, that we will ultimately be successful in this 
legislation and that we will get the President to see clearly what he 
is doing to the American people as he promotes, defends, and attacks 
Americans through the Texas v. U.S. lawsuit that is currently underway.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Payne, if he could 
join us with his comments. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Garamendi for his 
leadership and for bringing us together today on two very, very 
important topics. I have come to know him as a leader on issues that 
are impacting the American people, from California to New Jersey. The 
gentleman has demonstrated a concern for all people of this country and 
his constituents. For that, I am grateful.
  Today, the second topic on the Democratic agenda for the people, 
protecting preexisting conditions, is both timely and important. 
Yesterday, the Trump administration unleashed another assault on the 
Affordable Care Act. In Federal court, the Trump administration said 
that it agrees with the lower court's decision to overturn the 
Affordable Care Act.
  After campaigning on the premise that he would work to improve 
healthcare, President Trump wants to

[[Page H2821]]

eliminate protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  President Trump wants to end the provision that allows young people 
to stay on their parents' health insurance plans.
  President Trump wants to bring back junk insurance plans that take 
people's money but refuse to cover their medical expenses. That is what 
will happen if President Trump wins in Federal court.
  It was not that long ago when Federal law allowed insurance companies 
to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Insurance 
companies could charge people with preexisting conditions extremely 
high rates and refuse to cover them at all. The Affordable Care Act 
eliminated legalized discrimination against people with preexisting 
conditions.

                              {time}  1515

  But now the Trump administration is fighting to bring healthcare 
discrimination back.
  Well, there is no going back.
  More than 200,000 people in New Jersey, alone, who purchase their 
insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace have preexisting 
conditions. Nearly 5 million New Jerseyans who get insurance through 
their employment could be harmed by Trump's attack on the Affordable 
Care Act's protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  New Jerseyans and all Americans deserve protection, not 
discrimination.
  In my district, 16,000 people, alone, with preexisting conditions 
would be at risk of coverage loss or premium increases if the Trump 
administration successfully rolls back the Affordable Care Act.
  Now, let me touch on the effects of this on women for a second.
  The Affordable Care Act's protection for people with preexisting 
conditions prevents insurance companies from charging women a higher 
premium on the basis of their being a woman. It keeps insurance 
companies from charging women a higher premium on the basis of them 
being a woman. Now, that is not something that they had very much of a 
choice in at birth, so it is immoral to hold that against them.
  What the Trump administration is trying to do would result in women 
facing significantly higher health insurance premiums simply because 
they are not men. That wasn't right before the Affordable Care Act, and 
it sure isn't right now.
  Let me be clear: The Trump administration wants to put lives at risk 
by undermining people's access to healthcare in this Nation.
  And let me be clear about this: I will keep fighting, along with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), to ensure that all 
Americans' healthcare is protected. That is the least we can do in the 
position that our constituents have given us in this task to be their 
voice in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again commend Mr. Garamendi for 
always being timely in bringing these issues to light for the American 
people and for all the country to see, that we here in the House of 
Representatives do speak for them.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so very much; he is 
far too generous in his comments with regard to me. He is constantly 
here joining in these discussions and putting forth the interests of 
the constituents in his district in New Jersey and across wider 
America. I thank the gentleman for raising those issues, and 
particularly for pointing out the issue of preexisting conditions as it 
affects women.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, every woman was considered to have a 
preexisting condition, and, indeed, they were charged higher premiums. 
That is not the case with the Affordable Care Act in law, but if the 
Texas case is successful, if the President is successful in his 
arguments before the court and it is carried on, then those protections 
for women, more than 50 percent of the American population, will be 
gone.
  Beyond that, the expansion of the Medicaid programs, those, too, will 
be gone. For people with preexisting conditions, people who have 
diabetes or high blood pressure, their protections will be gone.
  So the effect on preexisting conditions, and particularly this case 
that the President has put his full support behind, is an egregious 
attack on the healthcare and the well-being of Americans, as Mr. Payne 
so well pointed out. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for 
doing that.


                         Armed Forces Readiness

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things that I 
do want to speak to today.
  Today, the House Armed Services Committee had before it the Acting 
Secretary of Defense as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. Issues were raised during that committee hearing about 
readiness, specifically about the efforts of the President to 
circumvent the Constitution of the United States and to take unto 
himself the appropriation power, which is clearly laid out in the 
Constitution as the power of Congress.
  Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly says that there 
shall be no money taken from the Treasury except by appropriation law. 
That is the power of the purse that is given to Congress.
  The Founders were very clear that, if the President would have not 
only the power of carrying out the law, but also the power of 
appropriation--that is, money to carry out the law--we would have a 
completely different system. In fact, we would have an imperial 
presidency. They didn't want that, and they wrote very clearly into the 
Constitution that no money shall be taken from the Treasury without an 
appropriation.
  Now, the Congress acted on this issue, acted on the issue with an 
appropriation bill, and Congress did not agree with the President. 
Instead of the $5 billion, $6 billion that the President wanted for his 
border wall, Congress said no and provided $1.3 billion for border 
security, including some fences in some locations. Very clearly, 
Congress said no to the President, and Congress appropriated money for 
a specific purpose.
  No sooner was that legislation signed by the President than the 
President attempted to usurp the power of Congress and to appropriate 
for himself some $8 billion by manipulating the existing emergency laws 
that allow the declaration of emergency and money to be spent for that 
emergency.
  Okay. That is what he wanted to do. Be clear in understanding that 
this is the attempt by the President to appropriate money in an 
unconstitutional and, I believe, an illegal way.
  Now, it is not just a constitutional issue; it is also an issue of 
readiness for the military. We are talking about tens of millions of 
dollars to rebuild Offutt Air Force Base, the home of the Strategic Air 
Command.
  We are talking about $3 billion to $4 billion to rebuild Camp 
Lejeune, one of the two major domestic bases for the U.S. Marine Corps.

  We are talking about $3 billion to $4 billion to rebuild Tyndall Air 
Force Base in Florida, the home of the F-22 fighter jets and the new 
and presumed home of the new F-35 multitask fighter.
  So we should ask: If the President is able to divert $6 billion to $8 
billion from the military construction account, which we call MILCON, 
and use it for his border wall, where are we to find the money, the $3 
billion to $4 billion to rebuild Tyndall, the $3 billion to $4 billion 
to rebuild Camp Lejeune, and all of the other bases across the United 
States and around the world that face climate change? Where are we 
going to get the money?
  Well, if you happen to be a deficit hawk, you are going to get 
excited about the prospect it is going to be borrowed money.
  The way in which the budget and the appropriation process works here, 
critical programs that the military has deemed essential for the 
readiness of our military and Congress has agreed to, authorized and 
appropriated money for that purpose, those programs will be delayed, 
and we will simply increase the deficit to do it so that the President 
can fulfill his campaign promise of a big, beautiful border wall.
  Last week, I was in Jordan on a military mission to look at our 
troops there, to look at the situation in Syria and Iraq. Also, I was 
in Iraq and specifically went to look at a program that the U.S. 
Government had funded to build a modern 21st century border security 
program for Jordan's military and Jordan's Government.
  Over 300 miles between Jordan and Syria, in the most violent part of 
the world, with ISIS, with refugees, with

[[Page H2822]]

military weapons, with drugs, all of that, we spent $345 million of 
taxpayer money building a 21st century border security system, a system 
that involves observation techniques of many kinds, a system that 
involves observation towers at appropriate locations along that 300-
plus-mile border, and quick response teams to go where there was an 
incursion across the border. And by all accounts from our own military, 
from Jordan's military, it is effective.
  Now, the President wants $8 billion for 150 miles of fence and walls. 
There is a better way, and as Democrats, we have been calling for this 
better way for months and months. In fact, in the legislation that the 
President signed, it is the better way.
  It is not a big, beautiful wall with ``Trump'' written on it. It is, 
in fact, a virtual system similar to what we built in Jordan, in the 
most dangerous place in the world, and it works.
  So we need to be very careful here, because that is $8 billion that 
will not be available to make our American military installations all 
around the world ready for the tasks that they have before them.
  So as we ponder this issue, as we go through the appropriation 
process this spring, and as we fight this constitutional battle with 
the President over the founding mothers' and fathers' understanding of 
what an imperial presidency could become if they have both the 
appropriation power as well as the power to execute the law, they said, 
no, the President cannot have that power.
  As we fight this fundamental constitutional issue, we should also 
keep in mind that there is a better way to protect our southern border, 
or any border for that matter, and it is essential that we spend the 
money that we have appropriated for the military to protect their 
readiness and, in so doing, protect the security and safety of America.
  So we will have this debate, and this debate will hopefully result in 
the American public understanding what they should have learned in 
grammar school about civics and about the separation of powers. 
Unfortunately, our President seems to have missed that class.
  But we are not going to let it go. This is not a Democratic or 
Republican issue. This is an American constitutional issue.
  So let us proceed. Let us proceed in full understanding of what is at 
stake here: the rebuilding of the bases, yes, but, more importantly, 
the very fundamental notion of the separation of powers that is 
inherent in the Constitution. And, by the way, every Member of the 
House of Representatives, every Senator, and every general, including 
acting Secretaries of State, have taken an oath to defend and uphold 
the Constitution. We would all do well to read Article I, Section 9.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________