[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3966-H3974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4366, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
   VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 9, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL 
DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE 
 SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO 
    ``ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; LESSER PRAIRIE-
  CHICKEN; THREATENED STATUS WITH SECTION 4(D) RULE FOR THE NORTHERN 
  DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT AND ENDANGERED STATUS FOR THE SOUTHERN 
DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT''; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. 
  RES. 24, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF 
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES 
   FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO ``ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 
WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR NORTHERN LONG-EARED 
                                 BAT''

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 614

       Resolved, That 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. 4366) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies 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. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of 
     rule XXI are waived.
       Sec. 2. (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 3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments 
     described in section 4 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

[[Page H3967]]

     subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 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 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  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 4 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. 4.  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. 5.  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.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 9) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 
     8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 
     ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser 
     Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status With Section 4(d) Rule for 
     the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered 
     Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment''. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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 
     Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to commit.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 
     Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat''. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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 
     Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse) pending which time 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. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be amended by striking the last sentence in the first 
section of the resolution and insert ``All points of order against 
provisions in the bill are waived.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in 
support of the underlying legislation.
  House Resolution 614 provides for consideration of three measures: 
H.R. 4366, S.J. Res. 9, and S.J. Res. 24.
  The rule provides for H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans 
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2024 to be 
considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the 
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides 
one motion to recommit.
  The rule makes in order 41 amendments.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration S.J. Res. 9, a 
resolution of congressional disapproval related to the lesser prairie-
chicken under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources or their designees, and provides one motion to 
commit.
  Finally, the resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 24, a 
resolution of congressional disapproval related to the northern long-
eared bat under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources or their designees, and provides one motion to 
commit.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4366 fulfills our commitment to America's veterans 
by fully funding their healthcare programs and benefits, providing 
robust funding for mental health services, and rejecting the Biden 
administration's efforts to insert far-left policies into the VA.
  As a Navy veteran, I am proud that this bill improves the quality of 
life for servicemembers by investing more than $17.6 billion in 
military construction and family housing for our heroes.
  This includes critical investments in childcare development centers, 
upgrades to barrack housing, and billions to counter China in the Indo-
Pacific.
  Additionally, H.R. 4366 includes a provision prohibiting the closure 
of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and also prohibiting the use of 
funds to build detainee facilities on U.S. soil.

                              {time}  1230

  As a veteran of the global war on terror and someone who prosecuted 
terrorists in the Iraqi court system, I saw firsthand the destruction 
and chaos caused by these radical extremists. Bringing these terrorists 
to U.S. soil is unthinkable to me, and many of these terrorists were 
directly involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation also provides important 
congressional oversight of the Biden administration.
  S.J. Res. 9 and S.J. Res. 24 utilize the Congressional Review Act to 
nullify the Department of the Interior's rules related to the lesser 
prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.
  In both instances, bureaucrats from the Biden administration are 
placing red tape on economic development and private land use, and 
without warrant. These rules expose farmers to litigation and lawsuits 
for routine farming activities, shut down existing conservation efforts 
from private industry, and impose new restrictions on farmers and 
ranchers.
  This is just another example, another instance, of far-left, extreme 
Democrats in Washington, D.C., making it more costly for Americans to 
make a living, put food on the table, and develop our rural 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my 
friend from Pennsylvania, for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, today's rule provides for 
consideration of three bills. The first of those bills is H.R. 4366, 
the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2024.
  Mr. Speaker, this is typically a bipartisan bill, one of the most 
bipartisan bills that we consider in the United States Congress. That 
is not the case this year. Why? Because House Republicans decided to 
inject into this bill extreme policy riders that threaten the freedoms 
of each and every American. They have kicked off appropriations season 
by doubling down on funding bills that endanger essential services.
  Just to speak frankly, neither this bill nor any of the others that 
they will bring to the floor on the appropriations

[[Page H3968]]

side have any chance of becoming law. My colleagues across the aisle 
know that.
  Today, they come to the floor to proudly tout a bill that would slash 
$1.3 billion--not my number; their number--from military construction 
programs that support quality-of-life services for members of the Armed 
Forces and their families.
  Democrats fight against cuts to vital programs that help the American 
people. Unfortunately, House Republicans are doing the opposite.
  We saw this cycle many times, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the last 7 
months, it has been hard to understand what my colleagues across the 
aisle truly want.
  At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted 
for a House rules package that promised an open rules process for 
amendments. Yet, here we are, debating another rule structured by 
Speaker McCarthy and Republican leadership.
  Now, House Republicans threaten to shut down the government in order 
to fulfill an unpopular agenda full of far-right policy riders that 
undermine equal opportunity, restrict access to abortion, and more.
  We are going to hear a lot from my colleague, my friend on the other 
side of the aisle, about what he claims this bill will do. It is 
important for the American people to understand three simple things.
  It cuts military construction by $1.3 billion. Think about the impact 
that will have, Mr. Speaker, on servicemembers across the country.
  It funds no infrastructure backlog for the Department of Defense. Mr. 
Speaker, we have a $100 billion infrastructure backlog in the 
Department of Defense for installations across the world, across the 
country, and in our districts. The President asked for $2 billion to 
start to address that backlog. House Republicans said no. How much did 
they give? Zero.
  Finally, the bill does nothing to address toxic PFAS contamination--
not a thing. Last year, House Democrats, under President Biden's 
leadership, appropriated $200 million toward PFAS remediation to 
address the toxic chemicals that are literally killing people across 
the country. This bill appropriates how much? None.
  Those are the facts.
  If that weren't enough, as the gentleman said, we are considering two 
other bills today. The American people watching this might think that 
perhaps House Republicans would decide to bring a bill to the floor to 
lower costs, address inflation, try to reduce the cost of healthcare, 
grow the middle class, build safer communities, or address school 
safety. No. House Republicans have declined to put any of those bills 
on the floor. Instead, what are we left with? Hearings and bills on gas 
stoves and, today, bills on the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern 
long-eared bat. That is what we are here to debate, Mr. Speaker.
  I think the American people would be deeply disappointed at the 
choice of priorities that House Republicans are pursuing. Let's get 
back to the core issues at hand. Let's negotiate in good faith. Let's 
do the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let's just go back and look at what has been said over the last few 
months. For the last few months, the administration and extreme 
congressional Democrats have been spreading lies that House Republicans 
were cutting veterans benefits. These lies were merely designed to 
score cheap political points at the expense of our veterans.
  Let's go through a few of the quotes from extreme Democrats.

  President Biden stated in May: ``Republicans in Congress proposed 
budget cuts that would threaten veterans housing services, medical 
care, and mental health care.''
  It didn't stop there. Ranking Member Takano stated, on April 26, they 
are holding veterans benefits ``hostage, again pointing to concerns 
about fiscal responsibility.''
  In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Schumer stated, on March 1: 
``Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans 
and cut VA mandatory funding.''
  Now we get to this week, when House Republicans will pass a bill that 
will fully fund veterans benefits, fully fund veterans healthcare, and 
fully fund all other veterans programs. This bill provides the VA $16.4 
billion over the fiscal year 2023 enacted level and matches the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2024.
  There is no question who was and who was not misleading the American 
people. There is no question that our actions today support veterans. 
Just watch to see how many of those Democrats will vote ``no'' 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy), my good friend and a member of the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me time to address the House today.
  I rise today in support of keeping the promises made to our Nation's 
veterans. Millions of men and women served this Nation in uniform 
bravely, and they have been failed by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
  Too often, the VA has left veterans and their loved ones with long 
delays, substandard service, and neglect. Now, rather than continue the 
Trump administration's work to hold the VA accountable, the Biden 
administration is instead focused on promoting divisive ideologies and 
radical leftist priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, the VA should be focused on the needs of our Nation's 
veterans, not promoting a political agenda. The legislation before us 
today puts the VA back on the task at hand, caring for the men and 
women who gave their all for this country, like finally pushing the VA 
to fix its electronic health record system, where patient safety issues 
have been so dire that they have even resulted in several deaths.
  Let me say that again. The inability of the VA to do its job has 
resulted in injury and death to veterans. Sadly, this isn't the first 
time we have heard of such negligence. We need to do better. We owe 
better, and this bill will help accomplish this today.
  I think I speak today for all the veterans in my district when I say 
that they are sick and tired of indignities and substandard care due to 
electronic records.
  I strongly support the underlying legislation before us today, and I 
hope my colleagues can overcome partisan outrage to stand with our 
Nation's veterans.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that only in Washington can 
politicians demand recognition after being shamed into doing the right 
thing. That is what we just heard.
  We all know that the default on America act that House Republicans 
pursued was primed to cut veterans benefits. House Democrats, President 
Biden, and Senate Democrats led the charge to convince our colleagues 
to come back from the brink, and now they have the audacity to demand 
that we thank them for it.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, this comes from the same party that 
overwhelmingly voted against the Honoring our PACT Act, the most 
comprehensive healthcare legislation for veterans in my lifetime, the 
proudest vote I have taken since I was sworn into the United States 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, 174 of them voted against it, including the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. Now they have the audacity to claim that they are 
fighting for veterans?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise to take note of the sad irony that the extreme Republican 
majority is bringing this appropriations bill to the floor on the 75th 
anniversary of President Truman's desegregation of the Armed Forces.
  President Truman's heritage would suggest that he would be an 
unlikely champion for civil rights. He grew up in a segregated town in 
Missouri, in a family that owned slaves and defended slavery.
  When our 33rd President heard of the blinding of Sergeant Isaac 
Woodard, Jr., a decorated Black World War II veteran who was brutally 
attacked by a police officer while traveling home to

[[Page H3969]]

Winnsboro, South Carolina, on a Greyhound bus--still in his uniform 
after being honorably discharged--Truman was moved to forsake his 
upbringing and desegregate the Armed Forces.
  President Truman courageously recognized and acted to further our 
Nation's fundamental obligation to our servicemembers and veterans, 
regardless of their backgrounds.
  We should be working to build upon the progress he made, but 
regrettably, the MILCON-VA bill that the majority is bringing to the 
floor today would constitute a significant step backward.
  This ill-conceived legislation, in addition to reducing funds for the 
military construction projects that are fundamental to our 
servicemembers' quality of life, is also an attack on the dignity of 
our veterans.
  It attacks the dignity of women veterans by blocking reproductive 
healthcare when their health is endangered.
  It attacks the dignity of veterans in need of gender-affirming care 
by blocking the VA from providing it, even if it is recommended by a 
doctor.
  It attacks the dignity of veterans and all Americans of color and 
others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and 
adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality by blocking the 
Biden administration's ongoing efforts to advance equity.
  President Truman recognized that our national security is enhanced by 
respecting the dignity of all American patriots who sacrifice to defend 
it. This legislation being brought today by the extreme Republican 
majority is at odds with that principle.

                              {time}  1245

  If the Members of today's extreme Republican majority were in office 
in 1948, I fear they would have attacked President Truman's 
desegregation order as an unacceptable diversity, equity, and inclusion 
measure, which section 417 of this legislation would ban.
  I fear that if this bill were enacted into law, it would prevent the 
military from discussing the blinding of Sergeant Isaac Woodard and its 
influence on President Truman because the topic would be deemed 
critical race theory, which would be banned by section 415, rather than 
the historical fact that it was.
  Will this section ban our military leaders from making repairs to the 
GI Bill benefits that were denied Black World War II veterans?
  Mr. Speaker, when President Truman was informed of Isaac Woodard's 
blinding, he reportedly exclaimed: ``My God, I had no idea it was as 
terrible as that. We have got to do something.'' Sadly, this extreme 
Republican majority seems to find new ways to be terrible every week.
  I rise in opposition to the consideration of this awful bill because 
Democrats know we have got to do something to prevent them from pushing 
us off our trek toward a more perfect Union that President Truman so 
courageously advanced 75 years ago today.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing the Department of the Interior's 
out-of-touch rulemaking decisions this week, let's talk about last week 
with the Department of the Interior. The Department proposed a new rule 
adding barriers to the future of energy production. This decision will 
drastically impact oil and gas investments and will raise energy costs 
for hardworking Americans.
  Let's not forget that under the Trump administration, our Nation was 
energy independent, and this rulemaking will only deepen our reliance 
on foreign adversaries for energy.
  According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 88 percent of Americans 
believe we should produce oil and gas here in the United States, and 85 
percent agree domestic energy production counters China and Russia. 
Again, that is 85 percent. In addition, 88 percent believe that 
domestic energy production will help lower costs for families. That is 
88 percent. These seem to me like pretty overwhelming numbers.
  However, we have a bunch of unelected, career bureaucrats who are 
accountable to no one who are making these decisions. It is clear that 
Biden's Department of the Interior rulemaking continues to hurt our 
national security, our economy, and our energy independence, not to 
mention how wildly out of step this administration is with the American 
people. It is time that extreme Democrats stop the war on American 
energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I really wish I could say that 
caring for our veterans is a bipartisan issue, something we all agree 
on. Instead, for the first time in years, the appropriations for 
military construction and VA will not be bipartisan because my 
colleagues across the aisle have not put veterans first. Instead, they 
have tacked onto their VA bill a kitchen sink of culture wars.
  H.R. 4366 would trample on our veterans' freedoms, slash access to 
reproductive care, and slash access to gender-affirming care. It would 
prohibit training that helps people from different backgrounds work 
together that addresses the inequalities that still exist in our 
military. It would allow homophobia to run rampant.
  This legislation makes our VA facilities less welcoming for the 
thousands of diverse New Mexicans who receive care there.
  Every homeowner knows it is better to fix a leaking roof right away 
because if not, it is going to be really expensive.
  Yet, this bill cuts $1.5 billion from military construction. Our 
military housing and health clinics are leaking, but these cuts will 
cost us so much more in the future. We must do more than just thank our 
veterans for their service. We can't just use words. We must actually 
back it up with resources.
  When Democrats led the House, we passed the Honoring our PACT Act to 
expand healthcare coverage and compensate veterans exposed to toxic 
substances, which 174 Republicans voted against. Democrats listened to 
the needs of our communities and passed legislation that made an actual 
difference in their lives.
  Now veterans have until August 9 to file a claim to receive 
retroactive 2023 benefits. To make sure our veterans know about these 
benefits, I am hosting a PACT Act townhall on August 1.
  That is what it looks like to not just thank veterans but to truly 
care about the patriots who served our country. That is the difference 
that Democratic leadership makes.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand it is a little empty on the other side of 
the aisle. There are perhaps not many Members who want to come to the 
floor to defend the propriety of this bill that cuts military 
construction funding, and I don't blame them.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), whom I respect, 
has the unenviable task of trying to make the case for a bill that cuts 
military construction funding, does nothing to address the 
infrastructure backlog, and cuts PFAS toxic exposure remediation, to 
say nothing of the many other ills within the legislation.
  We heard a lot earlier about the supposed work that House Republicans 
are doing on the appropriations front. Of course, this is the first 
appropriations bill that has come to the floor. However, we still can't 
get House Republicans to commit to protecting Social Security and 
Medicare, as House Democrats have championed. Of course, we know why. 
It is because they have been unabashed about their efforts to cut both 
vital programs.

  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment that we have offered before to the rule to provide for 
consideration of a resolution which unambiguously states that it is the 
House's duty to keep our solemn promise to American workers and seniors 
to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and reject any 
cuts to these critical programs.
  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 
gentleman from Colorado?

[[Page H3970]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Scholten) to discuss our very important proposal.
  Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle may not have something to say today, but I surely do.
  I rise today to express my profound disappointment in House 
Republicans' decision to prioritize their extremist agenda over passing 
a strong, bipartisan appropriations bill.
  I pride myself on always looking for ways to find common ground with 
my Republican colleagues, and the bill to fund the VA and military 
construction usually provides ample opportunity to do so. We need to do 
everything we can to ensure that our current and former servicemembers 
are provided the best possible care.
  I was hoping I could count on my friends across the aisle to put 
forth a bill that we could all support, just like we have done time and 
time again. Instead, extremists in the party have hijacked this bill 
and removed dedicated funding for PFAS cleanup, eliminated funding for 
climate resilience during a time of increasingly severe weather events, 
and put women and families at risk by restricting access to potentially 
lifesaving healthcare.
  By including these provisions, extremists on the right have decided 
that playing partisan politics is more important than improving the 
lives of our Nation's heroes.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike our colleagues across the aisle, Democrats are 
focused on delivering results on the things that matter to our 
communities. For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, we 
will bring up a resolution affirming our commitment to protecting 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Why don't Republicans want to do the same thing? These programs are 
critically important lifelines for tens of millions of Americans across 
the country. In west Michigan, my home district, Medicare provides 
lifesaving healthcare coverage for over 100,000 seniors. Additionally, 
nearly 150,000 recipients receive $264 million in monthly Social 
Security benefits, including over 110,000 seniors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. SCHOLTEN. Mr. Speaker, these are the sorts of programs we should 
be spending our time working on and strengthening, not unserious 
messaging bills which will be dead on arrival in the Senate. We are 
just wasting time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up this important legislation.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing, I guess if you say something to knock 
people, you just assume they are going to think it is true.
  Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about the numbers. This bill 
provides the VA $16.4 billion above FY23 levels. We are over the levels 
the Democrats passed last year. We are actually at the levels that the 
President wanted, that he put in his budget request for FY24. We are 
fully funding the VA.
  My crystal ball is broken today, but I am willing to bet that every 
single Democrat will vote ``no'' on this bill which, again, fully funds 
the VA and all the programs that they are talking about. Let's just see 
where they vote tomorrow. It is quite amazing.
  The talk about DEI in the military, under the Biden administration 
DEI created a recruiting and retention crisis without any reason for 
doing this, and that has weakened our military readiness. I was in the 
Navy. I lived through this.
  I can tell you that DEI and CRT are plummeting our recruitment 
numbers. For what? From 2015 to 2020, the Army went on a witch hunt. 
The Army reported 21 of roughly a million soldiers were subject to 
disciplinary actions due to participation in extremist organizations. 
That was in 2020, they said a million soldiers were involved in this.

  In 2021, the DOD did a study on that, and it reported that less than 
100 of the over 2 million servicemembers actually participated in 
prohibited activity. For those of you without a calculator, that is 
roughly 0.00005 percent. That is what we are fighting over here.
  The underlying legislation we are talking about actually eliminates 
wasteful spending for DEI and CRT, and puts it where we need it, in 
veterans' programs and military construction. It also does a lot to 
reverse the negative impact on military readiness and what is driving 
down our recruitment--just one of the many things that is driving down 
our recruitment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about facts. Again, 
these are not my numbers. These are their numbers. This year in this 
bill, House Republicans appropriate $17.5 billion for military 
construction. That is $1.5 billion less than the current level. In 
other words, it is a decrease. It is a cut of $1.5 billion to military 
construction, which is used for housing for our servicemembers.
  Under current levels, there is $200 million dedicated to PFAS 
remediation. In this bill, there is none.
  President Biden requested $2 billion to address the infrastructure 
backlog in our military. Under this bill, there is none.
  These are not my numbers. These are their numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from The Hill today titled: ``Senate GOP fears House actions 
could lead to shutdown: It's going to be a problem.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.

                     [From The Hill, June 15, 2023]

 Senate GOP Fears House Actions Could Lead to Shutdown: `It's Going to 
                             be a Problem'

                             (By Al Weaver)

       Senate Republicans are worried the House GOP's decision to 
     write government funding bills at levels below those laid out 
     in the recently passed bipartisan debt ceiling bill will 
     create a tough road for lawmakers to avert a government 
     shutdown.
       House Republican leaders this week announced a plan to 
     write 2024 spending bills at fiscal 2022 levels, an attempt 
     to assuage House Freedom Caucus members who effectively shut 
     down all work in the chamber last week over their 
     dissatisfaction with the debt ceiling deal struck by Speaker 
     Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and President Biden.
       The news outraged Democrats and landed like a thud with GOP 
     appropriators in the Senate, leaving them to scramble to get 
     a funding bill through Congress before the end of September.
       ``It's going to be a problem,'' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito 
     (W.Va.), the No. 5 Senate Republican and an Appropriations 
     Committee member, told The Hill. ``I don't want to co-opt 
     what Sen. [Susan] Collins [R-Maine] might say, but . . . we 
     struck an agreement that will write to those numbers.''
       ``We'll go into a collaborative conference, try to hash it 
     out,'' Capito continued. ``But I don't think it's going to be 
     easy.''
       The Senate has eight working weeks between now and the end 
     of September before a spending deal is needed, with the 
     annual monthlong August recess sandwiched in between.
       In total, the decision to put the bills together at the 
     2022 levels would represent a $120 billion haircut that 
     Democrats in both chambers and most Senate Republicans are 
     not at all prepared to swallow.
       A number of Senate Republicans were already upset that the 
     debt ceiling agreement likely will not allow for an increase 
     in defense spending in any 2024 funding deal, and the 
     possibility of even greater cuts is making the road to an 
     agreement even more treacherous than before.
       ``I'm not concerned that we lack the capacity to do it,'' 
     Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), a Senate Appropriations 
     Committee member, told The Hill. ``But we have to have the 
     will to get on it.''
       If there's anything that makes some senators hopeful that 
     they can reach a resolution, it's the carrot and stick 
     included in the debt ceiling deal. If a spending accord is 
     not struck, a 1 percent cut across the board for defense and 
     nondefense priorities would go into effect next year--a 
     result almost no one in the upper chamber wants.
       Senators on both sides of the aisle are warning the 
     national security implications will be dire if the cuts take 
     place.
       ``I think there's an incentive for both sides to try and 
     get to a deal even though it's going to be really hard,'' 
     said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican. 
     ``Moving bills here is hard enough. It's going to be really 
     challenging I think in the House.''
       McCarthy and House Republicans have attempted to assuage 
     concerns that a shutdown may be the end result of their 
     decision and have insisted they are adhering to the debt 
     deal. They say the budget caps represent a ceiling, not a 
     floor, meaning writing bills at 2022 numbers is reasonable.
       Democrats could not disagree more. They note lawmakers 
     generally look at spending caps as spending levels to aim 
     for, not a number to come in under, and they believe McCarthy 
     is ``reneging'' on his deal with the

[[Page H3971]]

     White House, according to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).
       ``This is a big problem,'' said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-
     Md.), a Senate appropriator. ``This is obviously a bad start 
     in the House because the ink was barely dry . . . before 
     Speaker McCarthy ran away from the bargain he struck.''
       ``It seems pretty clear that Speaker McCarthy's No. 1 
     priority is political survival and I think feels he has to 
     cater to the far-right, MAGA crowd there,'' Van Hollen 
     continued. ``It's clearly going to make for some rocky 
     moments over the next couple of [months].''
       The gripes of Senate Democrats echo their House colleagues. 
     House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Democrats 
     will oppose anything under the spending levels laid out in 
     the debt ceiling deal.
       ``The Senate is going to mark up to the deal that was made. 
     And so House Republicans are going to completely make 
     themselves irrelevant [and] make their members vote on these 
     deep, deep cuts, and it has no possibility of becoming law,'' 
     Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the chair of the House Democratic 
     Caucus, told reporters Tuesday in the Capitol.
       Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee, has already vowed to bring up the 
     series of a dozen appropriations bills at the levels agreed 
     to in the recently passed debt ceiling bill.
       And some in the Senate are simply ignoring the House's 
     actions as lawmakers realize that any spending deal will have 
     to move in a similar fashion to the debt ceiling deal, which 
     drew conservative ire but ultimately passed in a bipartisan 
     fashion.
       ``It doesn't strike me as serious. . . . I don't think it 
     can pass the House and even if it does it definitely can't 
     pass the Senate,'' said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a 
     Senate appropriator. ``We're going to have to do a bipartisan 
     appropriations bill and they can start out with whatever 
     partisan position they want, but this ain't it.''

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, that article is quoting a Republican Senator 
from the gentleman's region, his neighbor, Senator Shelley Moore 
Capito.

                              {time}  1300

  When House Republicans shut down the government in 66 days, which 
they seem committed to doing, the American people will be right to ask 
the question, they will be justified to ask the question of why House 
Republicans decided to focus their time on the northern long-eared bat 
and the lesser prairie-chicken. It is a fair question for the American 
people to ask.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
his leadership, and the manager of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The United States military, each and every soldier, each and every 
member of every single branch, take an oath when they leave their loved 
ones and accept the responsibility of dying for this country. If you 
have been able to fight on a battlefield and become a veteran, you 
still have taken that oath and you were willing to die for this 
country.
  With the enormous cuts that are facing our soldiers, our families in 
this military construction legislation, let me make it plain for my 
colleagues. They will deny those who take an oath, Active Duty, their 
families, job opportunities. They will deny them housing.
  Has anyone been to bases and seen some of the military housing that 
needs absolute either rebuild or rehab?
  Have you understood the importance of food assistance, particularly 
to veterans' families depending on that?
  Do they know how important it is for the soldiers to feed their 
families, to keep roofs over their heads?
  Do they know how important it is to provide education and training 
opportunities for those who leave the United States military?
  Let me remind you of the importance of their oath, and then let me 
remind you of the hard-earned work that this Congress did with 
President Biden to provide the PACT Act. The proposed cuts would have 
drastic consequences for the PACT Act. That is the bill that recognizes 
the toxicity that our brave men and women were in while they were 
fighting battles. That exposure fund could lead to slashing the medical 
care resources in the fund by 86 percent and fully abandoning the toxic 
exposure fund next year.
  Are we defaulting on our commitment to those who took the oath to die 
for this Nation? I think that is worthy of shame.
  Cities will be vulnerable when their veterans do not have the 
resources that are necessary for them to have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the burden on local 
cities?
  Our veterans are homeless. Our veterans are suffering, many times 
from PTSD, and if we do not have the kind of support services for them 
that this legislation provides, where are we in terms of the kind of 
housing and other assistance that they may need?
  I just simply ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we stand 
here on the floor, I am fighting for the cities and the States that 
receive these dollars ultimately, because that is where the people are.
  I do want to oppose the bills that are endangering our endangered 
species, S.J. Res. 9 and H.R. 4366. I oppose endangering our endangered 
species.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 4366, Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2024.
  This is a bill that appropriates funding for our military, the 
Department of Veteran Affairs, and other related agencies for fiscal 
year 2024.
  I strongly oppose this bill's realignment of military construction 
funding from priority projects to other less relevant projects.
  The level of funding allocations in this bill does not help the 
Veteran Affairs to support key priorities of its Administration such as 
ending veteran homelessness, increasing access to mental healthcare, 
and providing suicide prevention services, as well as investments in 
other critical areas, including caregiver support programs, overdose 
prevention, and treatment programs.
  While it is important to make annual adjustments to bills such as 
this, our national strategic planning cannot be based on vague 
predictions; it must present a concrete plan that goes beyond the 
current year.
  This Congress, and other relevant elements of the U.S. government 
should focus on a real integrated strategy that considers all aspects 
of national security spending while also helping to protect our 
veterans.
  Any reckless policies that attempt to claw back billions in funding 
for veterans' medical care would have negative impact on our veterans 
and put their healthcare in jeopardy.
  This bill should reflect efforts by the Congress to secure protection 
for adequate funding to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
will be able to continue to spend those essential resources for 
veterans' medical care.
  Doubling down on the Default on America Act by cutting over $142 
billion in funding does nothing but hurts our veterans, farmers, and 
their families by denying them access vital programs that they rely on.
  Surprisingly, Republicans do not want to end there; recent reports 
indicate that they want to go up to over $159 billion in funding cuts, 
and even as high as $189 billion with their insatiable desire for 
drastic cuts in funding for programs that support American families.
  Republicans need to stand by their word and let this House and the 
American people know where they stand on their support for veterans.
  Any radical cuts in funding by Republicans to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development would be devastating to more than 50,000 
veterans who rely on the Housing Choice Vouchers for their housing 
needs.
  Cutting funding to the Department of Labor by as high as 30 percent 
would result in more than 4,200 veterans losing the job training, 
counseling, and job readiness services they so desperately need; a 
group that is already either experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
  Earlier versions of Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill that Republicans supported in subcommittee provided 
for the transfer of $4.5 billion in critical funding for veterans' 
medical care to other purposes.
  The Republican-backed bill, if passed, could have resulted in drastic 
cuts to dedicated funding for veterans exposed to Agent Orange, burn 
pits, and other toxic substances.
  Republican proposed cuts would have drastic consequences for the PACT 
Act Toxic Exposures Fund and could lead to slashing the medical care 
resources in the Fund by 86 percent, and fully abandoning the Toxic 
Exposures Fund next year.
  I, along with my Democrat colleagues, will continue to work with 
veterans' organizations to ensure that this bill does not pass with 
these unreasonable cuts to critical programs and services that veterans 
across the country depend on.
  Congress cannot renege on the pledge and promises that are contained 
in the PACT Act; to provide the necessary, dedicated, funding; this 
bill requires nothing short of full funding for the Toxic Exposures 
Fund.
  Even with all these necessary measures, the 2024 Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill still

[[Page H3972]]

falls short of our commitment to veterans, servicemembers, and their 
families.
  This Committee should not pass a bill that cuts military construction 
by billions of dollars in effort to cut down on the entire process of 
funding the government.
  Through the PACT Act, the Biden administration continue to deliver 
its promise to better serve and better take care of our veterans of all 
wars who have been exposed to harmful chemicals like Agent Orange, burn 
pits, and other toxic substances.
  That funding for toxic exposures should not have to compete with 
other discretionary priorities; it should complement other funding 
sources.
  In addition to these drastic cuts, Section 258 of H.R. 4366 would 
prevent the VA from using funds to implement, administer, or carry out 
the Interim Final Rule (IFR) published on September 9, 2022, which 
expanded access to abortion for certain veterans, a provision which 
also prevents the VA from providing needed care to veterans when the 
health of the woman is endangered.
  Our country must ensure that the department of Veteran Affairs is 
able to provide access to abortions, especially in instances where the 
life or health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the 
pregnancy were carried to term, or when a pregnancy is the result of 
rape or incest.
  Sections 414, 415, and 417 of this H.R. 4366 further outline 
provisions that seek to limit efforts by the Federal Government to 
implement a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, 
including people of color and others who have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent 
poverty, inequality, and diversity.
  In its current state, this bill would prevent the Veteran Affairs 
from using funds to display any but the listed flags, intended to 
prevent the Veteran Affairs from displaying flags demonstrating support 
for historically marginalized groups such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 
Transgender, Queer, and Intersex veterans.
  This would indiscriminately undermine same sex marriage while also 
unduly complicating the routine business of the Department to provide 
healthcare and other services for veterans.
  The President's budget proposal presents a viable solution to provide 
desperately needed funding for construction projects and the military 
construction bill must prove to support the President's commitments to 
our veterans.
  Any real, pragmatic progress in Veteran Affairs' infrastructure 
backlog requires dedicated investment in our facilities outside the 
normal discretionary funding streams.
  It is my sincere hope that this military construction appropriation 
would ensure the quality of care at Veteran Affair's facilities for our 
veterans and Veteran Affairs employees.
  As our military leadership has indicated, 30 percent of our military 
infrastructure worldwide remains in poor condition; cutting funding for 
military construction is not a viable solution to this problem.
  With the present need to address recruitment and retention problem 
that currently faces our military, and to ensure a major quality of 
life issue for our servicemembers, we cannot afford these senseless 
cuts to military construction funding.
  I cannot support the passage of this military construction bill 
because our nation cannot to backtrack on our commitment to our 
servicemembers and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 9, a resolution that 
provides for congressional disapproval to legislatively de-list the 
lesser prairie-chicken from protection under the Endangered Species 
Act.
  Specifically, this bill calls on Congress to disapprove the rules 
submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 
protections for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
  The population and habitat of the lesser prairie-chicken, an 
endangered southwestern prairie grouse, is under growing threat.
  Originally numbering in the millions, the population of this bird has 
decreased by as much as 97%, and it now only inhabits 16% of its former 
habitat.
  Aerial survey results from 2012 through 2022 estimate a 5-year 
average lesser prairie-chicken population of 32,210 across the five-
state region in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, as well as my 
state of Texas.
  The conversion of natural grasslands to agriculture, energy 
development, fire suppression, drought, and the use of herbicides to 
kill Shinnery Oak habitat are all ongoing challenges that cause habitat 
loss and fragmentation.
  Additional harm is caused to these birds' habitats by fencing, power 
wires, and other tall structures that entice perching by predatory 
animals.
  The lesser prairie-chicken is a sign of healthy prairies and 
grasslands because it requires huge, undamaged natural grassland 
parcels to support self-sustaining populations.
  This makes them a crucial indicator of the general well-being of 
America's grasslands, a treasured and iconic terrain.
  It is essential that we work together to uphold the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA), which is responsible for the recovery of iconic 
species like the bald eagle.
  I urge my colleagues to support science-based decisions and join me 
in opposing this bill, S.J. Res. 9.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 24, which relates to 
the endangered species status of the Northern Long-Eared Bat.
  S.J. Res. 24 is a resolution of congressional disapproval to 
legislatively down-list the Northern Long-Eared Bat from ``endangered'' 
to ``threatened.''
  Not only would this downgrade the Northern Long-Eared Bat's status 
today, but it would effectively block the species from being moved up 
to a higher endangered threat level, no matter how close the species 
comes to extinction.
  It would be irresponsible to use extreme legislation, not science, to 
down-list the Northern Long-Eared Bat, thereby effectively scaling back 
its protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
  Without ESA protections, states, industries, and other entities will 
have little incentive to conserve or recover the Northern Long-Eared 
Bat.
  It is highly likely that the bat populations would likely dwindle 
further towards extinction.
  Moreover, by using the Congressional Review Act Process, this 
Congress is effectively limiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
from making similar future listings for this bat species.
  This move would prevent the agency from using its discretion to take 
the necessary measures for species conservation and will impede long 
term recovery efforts.
  Ultimately, Congressional action in this arena gives industries, not 
science, the upper hand in species listings.
  It is clear that some of my colleagues are doing the bidding of the 
timber and agriculture industries, despite the consequences that 
Northern Long-Eared Bat extinction could have on biodiversity and long-
term agriculture and timber industry practices.
  Down-listing this species would be especially dangerous in the 
current moment because the Northern Long-Eared Bat population is 
actively under threat from white nose syndrome, a deadly fungus that 
has caused a rapid decline in bat populations.
  The Northern Long-Eared Bat's current endangered status provides 
adequate protections while wildlife scientists work to address the 
underlying causes of white-nose syndrome.
  More broadly, Congress should not be interfering with the work of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under its Endangered Species Act 
authority.
  Species populations are constantly fluctuating based on environmental 
factors, invasive species, climate change, and other emerging threats.
  To remain up to date, the ESA requires periodic study and updates to 
ensure protections align with the best available science.
  By blocking future up-listing decisions, using the Congressional 
Review Act undercuts the ESA's inherent flexibility and agencies' 
science-based decision-making for species conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to support science-based decisions for 
endangered and threatened species and oppose this bill.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We can sit here and talk about the numbers all day because the 
Republicans, we have actually increased military construction $800 
million over what President Biden requested in his budget. We are $800 
million over what the President wanted.
  Where are we using that money? Well, we are using it in places like 
the South Pacific. Today, China is the global leader in human rights 
abuses.
  In 2021, the Trump administration determined that the CCP is 
committing genocide against the Uyghurs. In the South China Sea, China 
is militarizing disputed territory and growing their malign influence.
  In 2020, let's not forget that China ended Hong Kong's longstanding 
autonomy and a democracy came crashing down.
  In 2019, a manmade virus escaped from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, killing 
tens of millions around the world. In the near future, the CCP plans to 
invade our ally, the free and independent democracy of Taiwan.
  That is why I support the underlying legislation which focuses 
investment in the Pacific theater by providing $1.425 billion for 
infrastructure related to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and $131 
million for U.S. INDOPACOM. That is the Indo-Pacific Command.

[[Page H3973]]

  Again, think about those numbers. Think about combating China and 
their malign influences. When the Democrats sit here and say they are 
going to vote against this bill, they are voting against strengthening 
our Pacific theater against the malign influence of the CCP.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again it feels like Ground Hog Day. Again, I have great respect for 
my friend from Pennsylvania, but I don't understand what numbers he is 
looking at.
  Does he deny that in statute we appropriated last year $19 billion 
for military construction?
  He is an appropriator. I am happy to engage in a colloquy with him to 
the extent that he wishes to clarify that.
  Last year, military construction was funded at $19 billion. This 
year, it is funded at $17.5 billion. Not complicated, and, of course, 
the gentleman knows that because half of his caucus is bragging about 
the fact that they have cut military construction and a variety of 
other programs, juxtaposed against the levels that were set by 
Congressional Democrats.
  This is not disputed anywhere but apparently during this particular 
debate. They are cutting military construction. They are not funding 
military infrastructure backlog needs that the President has requested 
of this Congress; and they have zeroed out any dedicated funding for 
PFAS remediation. Those are the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).
  Mr. McGARVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 
4366 and the underlying bill. I oppose this bill because it hurts our 
servicemembers, it hurts our veterans, and it weakens our military.
  This bill fails our servicemembers and hurts our military readiness. 
It cuts over $1.5 billion for military construction projects all over 
the country, and includes no funding, no funding to make military 
installations like Fort Knox and Fort Campbell more resilient against 
climate change and the natural disasters that have ravaged my home 
State of Kentucky.
  Instead of writing a bill that strengthens our military or will 
improve resources for our servicemembers, my Republican colleagues are 
bringing to the floor a bill riddled with the partisan provisions to 
get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, restrict women's 
access to abortion and reproductive healthcare, and make VA facilities 
less welcoming for all of those who served our country.
  These are distractions. We shouldn't pick and choose which 
servicemembers we honor. Anyone who answers the call to serve our 
country deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and they 
deserve to have access to quality healthcare, food, housing assistance, 
and more.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to actually support our military, 
our veterans, and our servicemembers.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this 
time, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for the 
respectful debate. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on the 
bills that this House will unfortunately be considering this week but, 
nonetheless, I appreciate his courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, today marks 200 days since House Republicans gaveled us 
into this 118th Session of the United States Congress; 200 days that 
they have been in control; 200 days that they have had the gavels here 
in Washington, D.C.
  The American people would be justified in asking how have House 
Republicans spent those 200 days. Any bills to address inflation, to 
lower costs for working families, any bills to grow the middle class, 
to build safer communities? The answer is none.
  Instead, they have pursued extreme policy after extreme policy, and 
this MILCON appropriation bill is no exception. Gas stoves, the 
northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and whatever other 
issue House Republicans conjure up when we are back in session, that is 
how they have chosen to spend their time and taxpayer dollars.
  When House Democrats were in control, working with President Biden 
and our colleagues in the upper Chamber, we focused on issues that 
mattered to the American people:
  A bipartisan infrastructure law that, unfortunately, most of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber voted against 
that is rebuilding bridges and roads and highways across this country 
from Pennsylvania to Colorado, ensuring folks have clean water to drink 
and clean air to breathe;
  The PACT Act, the most comprehensive veterans' healthcare legislation 
enacted in my lifetime, that 174 Republicans in this Chamber voted 
against;
  The Inflation Reduction Act, capping insulin costs at $35 for seniors 
participating in Medicare across the country. That is how we spent our 
time.
  As I said earlier, we know that in 66 days, House Republicans will 
shut down the government. They are telegraphing that. Many of their 
Members have said publicly that they want to shut down the government; 
that, in their view, a shutdown of the government is the desired 
outcome; 66 days.
  Mr. Speaker, in 72 hours, Republicans will gavel this Chamber out of 
session. They will adjourn this Chamber for a 45-day recess.
  Mr. Speaker, 66 days until the government runs out of funding, 45-day 
recess, 72 hours until that recess, and we are here debating the lesser 
prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.
  It is deeply disappointing, and it does not comport with how the 
American public expects us to operate here in Washington, D.C. We can 
do better, and I would challenge my Republican colleagues to come back 
from the brink that I described earlier, work with us in good faith. 
Help us deliver for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and to 
vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. If you support cutting military 
construction, if you support not addressing military infrastructure 
backlog, if you support zeroing out PFAS remediation then, by all 
means, vote for the MILCON bill. But if you oppose those draconian 
cuts, as I do, then I hope you will vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I thank my good friend from Colorado for the spirited debate. I 
always enjoy it.
  We are here today because the Biden administration wants to tell the 
American people what they can do, how they can live. They want to tell 
you what kind of car you have to drive. They want to tell you what kind 
of stove that you can buy. They want to tell you what kind of energy 
you can use to heat your home.
  Now, under these Department of the Interior rules, Biden bureaucrats 
want to place further burdens on our farmers and ranchers, our rural 
communities, and economic development and on public and private land.
  Instead of focusing on the lesser prairie-chicken and the long-eared 
bat, maybe the Department should focus on securing our domestic energy 
supply chains and supporting American energy independence. Maybe that 
is the real purpose of why we are here talking about these issues, to 
force this Department to actually focus on what matters to American 
security and the American economy.
  I urge my colleagues to send that message to the Biden administration 
and support the underlying legislation.
  Additionally, as a Navy veteran, I support the underlying legislation 
that fulfills our commitments to America's veterans, our 
servicemembers, and their families.

[[Page H3974]]

  


                              {time}  1315

  Let's not forget that this MILCON-VA bill is $800 million for 
military construction over what President Biden requested in his budget 
request for FY24. It is also at the President's requested level of 
FY24. Maybe instead of attacking these numbers, my Democratic 
colleagues should be attacking their far-left Democratic President who 
wanted numbers below what the Republicans wrote for these numbers, and, 
again, we are fully funding Biden's requested VA numbers.
  It is simple that a ``no'' vote on this is a vote against our 
veterans, and that is absolutely horrifying. Our country has sent 
generations of heroes around the globe to defend our freedoms and the 
freedoms of others. It is essential that we now take care of those who 
took care of us.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:

     An Amendment To H. Res. 614 Offered By Mr. Neguse of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. 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. 9. Clause 1 (c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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.

                          ____________________