[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 4, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3587-H3594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8580, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025 AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8282, ILLEGITIMATE COURT
COUNTERACTION ACT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1269 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1269
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. 8580) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, 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. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-35, modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of
further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8580, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part B of 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 further amendment printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 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 further amendments printed
in part B of 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 his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part B of 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 H.R. 8580 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 H.R. 8580
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment 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 bill (H.R. 8282) to impose
sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court
engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or
prosecute any protected person of the United States and its
allies. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-37 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be
[[Page H3588]]
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 Foreign Affairs or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may 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 yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation. Before I talk about the rule, I want to
recognize our staff director, Kelly Dixon.
I recognize the staff director of the House Rules Committee, Kelly
Dixon Chambers.
I first met Kelly as a freshman Member of Congress. She has been a
mentor of mine and, most importantly, she has been a friend. This is
before I even joined the Rules Committee. Kelly has been a vital member
of the House of Representatives for over 25 years.
From Congressman Ken Calvert's office, to the House Judiciary
Committee, to the New York delegation, to the former offices of Speaker
Kevin McCarthy when he was whip and leader, to today where she is a
staff director of the Rules Committee majority staff under Chairman
Cole and Dr. Burgess, Kelly has always been a leader in the House
during some of the most consequential decisions over the past two
decades.
Mr. Speaker, the House owes Kelly a debt of gratitude, and I look
forward to working with her in the years to come.
Now back to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1269 provides for consideration of H.R.
8580, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2025.
This is under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and it
provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule makes 47 amendments in order.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8282, the
Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective
designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the largest mass
killing of Jews that we have seen since the Holocaust. This horrific
assault attacked Israel by land, sea, and air, killing over 1,200
innocent civilians, including dozens of Americans. For perspective,
this would be the equivalent of over 40,000 American dead and nearly
9,000 Americans being taken hostage.
In the aftermath of that atrocious attack, we have learned that
families were burned alive, infants were decapitated, women were
sexually assaulted, and other unthinkable acts of violence were
committed.
To date, Hamas continues to hold as many as 130 hostages. Since those
attacks, we have seen a clear divide in the United States and around
the globe between those who stand with our ally, Israel, and those who
stand with Hamas.
One of the organizations that stands with Hamas is the international
kangaroo court, also known as the ICC. This court is anti-American,
anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic. The United States and Israel are not
members of the ICC, and the court has absolutely no standing and no
jurisdiction over our Nation or the nation of Israel.
Previously, the court has targeted American warfighters for defending
our Nation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. They are now
targeting our ally and partner, Israel, and drawing a false equivalence
and distorted moral equivalency between the leaders of Hamas and the
democratically elected Government of Israel.
That is why House Republicans will pass the Illegitimate Court
Counteraction Act introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my
good friend.
This legislation would reimpose the Trump administration's sanctions
against the ICC officials that investigate, arrest, detain, and
prosecute U.S. citizens or allies, like Israel.
The choice is clear: Do you stand with our ally, Israel, or do you
stand with Hamas?
Do you stand with this illegitimate court?
{time} 0930
Additionally, as a Navy veteran and a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, I am proud to introduce FY25 MILCON-VA bill,
which was introduced by Chairman Carter.
Under Chairman Cole's and Chairman Carter's leadership, H.R. 8580
will fully fund veterans' healthcare programs and benefits. It provides
for an extra $75 million above the President's budget and $30 billion
above last year's enacted level for veterans.
Further, this legislation also provides for robust funding for the
Indo-Pacific region, invests billions in quality-of-life projects for
our servicemembers and their families, and blocks the Biden
administration from placing al-Qaida terrorists in our local
communities.
This bill provides for an additional $412 million over the
President's budget for military construction so we can invest more in
our national security.
As we approach the 80th anniversary of D-day, this week's vote will
be an important step in supporting our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I begin as well to take a moment to recognize Kelly
Dixon Chambers, the staff director for the House Rules Committee
Republicans whose last week on the Hill is this week.
There is no doubt that she is an extraordinary, exceptional,
incredible public servant. I said last night in the Rules Committee,
she is a master legislative strategist. She knows everything about
everything about rules and procedures. She spent her time here on
Capitol Hill working to improve this institution and to uphold the
traditions of the Rules Committee. She has also done a lot to foster an
environment of mutual respect and camaraderie behind the scenes, which
we all benefit from and appreciate, especially during these very
polarizing times.
In short, she is one of the most effective people I have ever worked
with on Capitol Hill, and all I have to say is that I love her and I
respect her a whole lot. All of us on this side of the aisle will
genuinely miss her.
I also said last night that my only problem with Kelly is that she
isn't a Democrat, but I don't hold that against her. In fact, she has
made me sharper and better at my job because I know she always brings
her A-game to everything that she does.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Kelly for all that she has done for Congress and
for this country. She has put people over politics. She cares. She has
accomplished a whole lot up here. She should be proud of her time
serving in the people's House. For the people here who call her a
friend and mentor, as I know I do, we wish her all the very best as she
steps into a new chapter in her life and her career.
Moving on, let me get to the rule here.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be managing this rule. I am glad that I am
allowed to speak on the floor again. As you remember, I was silenced 2
weeks ago for simply speaking the truth.
That is right. I was muzzled from that very rostrum for daring to
recite facts, and I can think of at least 34 new facts that could get
my words taken
[[Page H3589]]
down today, but I won't go there because I want to be allowed to say a
few things without being canceled by the Republican majority for the
high crime of merely speaking the truth.
This rule contains two bills, both of which I think are lousy.
First, is the House Republicans' Military Construction appropriations
proposal for fiscal year 2025. This should be one of the least
controversial funding bills Congress passes each year, but, this year,
House Republicans are loading their funding bills with more culture war
nonsense: the same attacks on abortion access, attacks on the LGBTQ+
community, and attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts.
We are talking about more narrow-minded, hateful MAGA riders that
inject partisan politics into what should be a bipartisan bill.
This bill also holds the VA back from protecting struggling veterans
who may pose a danger to themselves or others. It would hamper efforts
to prevent Veterans from dying by suicide. This bill zeroes out funding
for climate change and resilience projects, something that will
jeopardize our national security because it means our military
installations will not be prepared for the realities of the climate
crisis.
At the end of the day, this funding bill is full of poison pills that
endanger our national security and threaten the quality of life for
veterans, those who serve, and their families.
Again, this should have been easy. This should have been a bipartisan
bill where there would be very little debate or little dissension, and
they turned it into this horrific culture war bill filled with things
that, quite frankly, are very divisive and have no business being in
the Military Construction appropriations bill.
Second on the agenda is H.R. 8282, a bill that imposes sanctions on
the good people who work for the International Criminal Court and their
families.
I know Members have a variety of thoughts on this measure, but,
frankly, I think this is a bad, bad bill. The idea that the ICC is some
evil institution is totally contrary to fact. The International
Criminal Court is an important institution, and it is not in America's
moral or strategic interest to attack the court for doing its job.
The U.S. recognizes the jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the ICC
and cooperates with the ICC in cases ranging from Sudan to Ukraine and
Russia, to the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony.
Fundamentally, this bill says that human rights don't matter. In
fact, it totally undermines the rules-based international order that
America helped build.
Let me be clear: I am already being challenged to explain U.S. double
standards every time I meet with representatives of foreign
governments. When I meet with human rights advocates from abroad, they
are gutted, first, by the brutality and the inhumanity of the war in
Gaza, and, second, by America's inexplicable abandonment of its
commitment of human rights and justice for all.
What better gift to China or Russia, our most significant
adversaries, than for us to undermine the international rule of law and
gut institutions of accountability that the U.S. helped create and
worked to consolidate for more than 75 years.
What better gift than to say: Yes, it is just fine to ignore or
redefine human rights and international humanitarian law for reasons of
political convenience.
What should our reaction be? First, we should read the evidence
contained in the ICC filing. Second, we should wait for the judges to
actually rule on the warrant applications. We don't know what their
decision will be. When it comes down, if we disagree with it, we can
say so.
What is not okay is to attack the court's existence or threaten its
personnel and their families.
Republicans are already doing that in New York. It is wrong there and
it is wrong here.
Finally, we should insist on credible, independent investigations of
the crimes the ICC has alleged, which include, by the way, the
unspeakable crimes committed by Hamas on October 7. Surely, I hope
everybody here supports the ICC's effort to hold Hamas accountable.
We should also recognize the ICC's action for what it is. It is an
urgent attempt at prevention. The ICC is urging Israel to change course
and to stop the carnage against Palestinian civilians. It is calling
upon the independent Israeli judiciary to investigate these alleged
crimes and follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, before the
worst unimaginable criminal charges become inevitable.
Should this bill pass, it would completely isolate us
internationally, including and especially from our closest allies. It
would deepen accusations of hypocrisy that have already caused a mind-
boggling level of damage to the reputation of the United States, our
diplomacy, and the entire range of our soft power capabilities.
I am just completely astounded by how little my Republican colleagues
seem to even care about the massive ramifications of this bill. There
was no hearing. There was no hearing at all. There were no witnesses,
no markup, no nothing.
The Republican who testified last night in the Rules Committee had no
clue what was even in the bill. He told us he wasn't on the committee
of jurisdiction but he is. He didn't even know what the text of the
bill was because the text kept on changing multiple times.
Is that how you conduct business in the people's House?
My Republican colleagues have turned this place into a joke. They are
making a complete and total mockery of the committee process. On top of
it all, we have another closed rule. How pathetic.
I mean, I get that the Republicans may not care about the
implications of some of the things that they say or what they bring on
the floor, but at least try to go through the motions. Let's at least
have a hearing. Let's have witnesses. The Republicans could make
believe they care about the facts and that they are serious about
legislating.
Again, it is sad that this is the process that brings this bill to
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, good luck hiding behind procedural
arguments when talking about defending the ICC. This is a kangaroo
court, and to defend it is to defend an institution that is anti-
American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic, but we shouldn't be shocked
that this is coming from the left and the Biden administration.
This administration has been weak. They have been feckless. They have
been incompetent on foreign policy from now going back to when Joe
Biden was sworn into office.
What are we seeing? The world is absolutely on fire.
In his first year alone, President Joe Biden green lit the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline to provide Russian gas to Europe while at the same
time blocking the Keystone XL pipeline that would have actually led to
energy exportation from this country.
He also issued 94 executive actions on immigration which led to an
unprecedented invasion at our southern border. The President and his
unelected bureaucrats in the administration are also directly
responsible for the failed withdraw of the U.S. from Afghanistan,
giving up the Bagram Airbase before we even evacuated, which led
directly to the death of 13 American servicemembers, it stranded
thousands of American citizens abroad, and it brought the Taliban back
into power, something that we were there to counter for the last 20
years.
Let's talk about President Biden making the decision to delist the
Houthi rebels from the terrorist watch list. What did that do? It led
to a crisis in the Red Sea. He also placed an indefinite pause on LNG
exports, which benefits--I can't make this up--Russia and Iran, rather
than helping ourselves and our allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
That is just the start of the blunders of the Biden administration on
Foreign Affairs. He also waived the billions of dollars in sanctions on
Iran so their energy sector could grow and they could export energy,
which, of course, led to Iran being able to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and
the Houthi rebels, which has led to all the chaos in the Middle East.
Since October 7 alone, our servicemembers in the Middle East have
been attacked over 100 times, including the deaths of three Americans
in Jordan.
[[Page H3590]]
It just doesn't stop there. I just got back from a trip to Turks and
Caicos, an official trip, a congressional delegation. There you have a
small island nation that has roughly 60,000 citizens, and they are
allowed to commit human rights violations on Americans, holding
American detainees in a North Korean-style court system and legal
system there. All it would take to bring the Americans that are
wrongfully detained in Turks and Caicos home would be a do not travel
order from Antony Blinken.
Do you think Secretary Blinken has issued an order? Of course he
hasn't.
We have seen weakness. We have seen indecisive action from the State
Department and that has emboldened these banana republics like Turks
and Caicos to have draconian laws on their books that target American
citizens.
Biden's weakness has done nothing but embolden our adversaries. It
has emboldened Russia. It has emboldened China. It has emboldened Iran,
and now you are seeing it embolden banana republics that are holding
American hostages in basically the North Korea of the Caribbean, Turks
and Caicos.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy),
my very good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, to talk more
about the ICC.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I will join in a bipartisan moment of
agreement with my friend from Massachusetts about Kelly Dixon.
I too wish her well. I wish her all the best in her next endeavors.
The gentleman is correct about her intellect and her commitment to the
institution. We have debated numerous times on the floor. As a former
staffer, chief of staff to a senator, it is not always easy to walk the
line and intellectually engage and spar with Members of Congress, for
those without the election certificate, but to do so with the proper
amount of respect in going toe to toe with Members in the right way.
Kelly has always done that.
She does very much believe in keeping the traditions of this
institution moving forward in the right way. I am deeply appreciative
of that and of her service, and we will be wishing her well going
forward and will miss her.
{time} 0945
Here we are talking about the issues before us in this rule, the
MILCON-VA funding and the International Criminal Court.
Just a quick moment on MILCON-VA funding--I note that this
legislation that we put forward we have done so in good faith to
increase spending for veterans--yes, increase spending for veterans--
because it is higher than that which has been put forward by the
President in the President's budget. It is also, in aggregate, the
total amount of spending that we are spending on veterans when you
factor in mandatory spending and discretionary spending, will be
greater under our spending than it would be last year.
Yes, we are trying to figure out how to do this in a fiscally
responsible manner. We believe we have done that, and we have put
forward the policy initiatives that we believe are important to
constrain the administration to ensure that we are not advancing a
radical agenda through the executive branch's actions.
The President has been aggressive in disagreeing with the United
States Supreme Court and Congress in advancing a radical agenda,
whether it is DEI, CRT, or student loans. We believe it is our power of
the purse in Congress to be able to constrain that.
The thing I want to most talk about here is the International
Criminal Court. This is an issue that really shouldn't be partisan, I
agree. I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, and they have been good conversations. They
have been healthy conversations with leadership on both sides of the
aisle.
At stake right now is the critically important issue of ensuring that
we protect America's interests. That is what is at stake right now in
the International Criminal Court. It isn't just about Israel. In fact,
it is not even specifically about Israel.
This would be a permanent change, a change to the law to ensure that
if the International Criminal Court targets Americans or targets our
allies, that we would sanction the International Criminal Court.
Now, let's be clear. This is an unprecedented action being taken by
the International Criminal Court, seeking arrest warrants for the
sitting Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Israel. Say that out
loud. That is what is happening with the International Criminal Court.
Neither Israel nor the United States is a party to this organization,
yet this entity, the International Criminal Court, is trying to issue a
warrant against the Prime Minister of Israel.
There have been longstanding bipartisan concerns about the ICC's
undermining of the United States' sovereignty. Since the founding in
2002, every U.S. administration, both parties, has refused to join the
court, fearing its politicization and misuse.
On April 2, 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: ``We
maintain our longstanding objection to the Court's efforts to assert
jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United
States and Israel.''
NSC spokesperson John Kirby said, on April 30: ``We don't believe the
ICC has any jurisdiction here.''
Both the Biden and Trump administrations and over 330 Members of
Congress from both parties have rejected ICC investigations of the
United States and Israel in the past.
Last night in the Rules Committee, talking about the Democratic
witness: Do you believe the ICC should be able to target American
servicemen? The answer was no.
The fact here is if you allow this to happen, you are opening the
door. We need to make it crystal clear to our men and women in uniform
that we will not tolerate the ICC going after them or our allies for
simply performing their job.
This is not unprecedented in the sense that the ICC has tried to
investigate U.S. servicemembers before, as the gentleman from
Pennsylvania noted, but the reality here is this is pretty simple. This
bill would sanction the ICC. Yes, it has teeth. Yes, it would cause
some concerns and some pain for the members of the ICC. That is
intentional.
We want to make them think twice, and we modeled it after existing
legislation. We used a model. This is not something new. We believe
this is critically important. This country, the United States, should
stand united and hold the ICC accountable.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania made a point when he got
up that I was somehow trying to hide behind process. It is clear he
wasn't listening to my very substantive speech in which I actually
talked about the policy implications of what my Republican friends were
doing.
Since he brought up process, and I think this is an important point
to emphasize here because we are on the Rules Committee, I want to
point out that sometimes I call the Rules Committee, under the
Republicans, the break the rules committee.
Let's look at some of the rules that are being ignored today. This is
from the official Republican Committee Report. Maybe the gentleman
doesn't read it, but I do.
Let me quote: This waives ``all points of order against provisions in
H.R. 8580, as amended,'' which includes ``Clause 2 of rule XXI, which
prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill.''
The gentleman who just spoke routinely talks about how he is opposed
to unauthorized appropriations and appropriations bills, yet that rule
was waived by the Republicans.
``Clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits a bill or joint resolution
carrying a tax or tariff measure from being reported by a committee not
having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' That was ruled
waived.
Here is the big one: ``Clause 12 of rule XXI, which prohibits
consideration of a bill or joint resolution pursuant to a special order
of business reported by the Committee on Rules that has not been
reported by a committee.'' That is what is known, for my friends on the
other side of the aisle, as the McGovern rule.
When I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we actually put this in
[[Page H3591]]
place, that bills that come before the Rules Committee ought to have a
hearing and a markup by a committee of jurisdiction. We weren't always
perfect, but we really tried to be. We really tried to be.
Why did they waive the McGovern rule? The reason why is because they
short-circuited the legislative process. There were no hearings and no
markup on the ICC bill, none, not at all, and no one can amend it, as
well. No amendments are made in order.
Again, what was really puzzling to me was the Republican witness who
came before the Rules Committee couldn't even tell us what the accurate
text of the bill that we were considering was because it had been
changed so many times. It was astonishing to watch this in action.
Rules and process matter because when you ignore the process, you get
lousy bills, and nobody even knows what the implications of the ICC
bill are.
Again, you didn't have time for a hearing? You could have done an
emergency hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. You could have done
an emergency markup before it came to the Rules Committee. You bypassed
everything and kept on changing the text of the bill.
That is a lousy way to legislate. I will tell you, I can't wait until
after November and my friends are no longer in charge because we can
then demonstrate not only to my Republican friends but to the American
people how a legislative process should work, how to get things done,
how to be effective. This is irresponsible legislating.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
You can't make this stuff up. It is amazing. I am being gaslit in
real time here, and so are the American people. I often say if it
weren't for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at
all. Here we are, talking about process and procedure and totally
ignoring the fact that the Democrats ran roughshod over process and
procedure last Congress when they were in control.
Don't believe me? Let's look at the facts. Last Congress, the
Democratic-controlled Rules Committee considered 30 pieces of
legislation that did not go through regular order. That includes 28
McGovern waivers for unreported bills. You might say, oh, 28 out of 30,
what about the other 2? Well, the other two were reported but without
hearings.
It is amazing and so rich, being attacked for having a bill not going
through regular order on a few occasions when the Democrats themselves
had it 30 separate times in the last Congress. That is quite amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
I rise today in favor of this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to share my appreciation for Kelly Dixon,
who is leaving the Rules Committee. She is one of the first persons we
met as freshmen. Mr. Speaker, you remember us going to the Rules
Committee office and Kelly running us through how things operate here
on the House floor. I had no experience in politics, and it was all new
to me. She made the rules clear, and decorum, as well, which is such an
important part of this institution. We wish Kelly well.
I want to say a special thank-you to the Appropriations Committee, in
particular, Chairman Cole and Defense Subcommittee Chair Calvert, for
the $144 million in this bill, which is going to go to the advanced
individual training barracks for prestigious Fort Leonard Wood in the
southeastern part of the Fourth Congressional District of the great
State of Missouri, which I represent.
Fort Leonard Wood is a wonderful center of excellence, training the
men and women who are tasked with protecting our great Nation. I was
down there last year to visit and saw the need for new barracks on this
great facility. It was real, Mr. Speaker.
I also thank Secretary Wormuth of the Army for making this a priority
in the President's budget because, together, we are working to increase
our retention and recruitment for the armed services.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have issues with recruitment. Only 9
percent of Americans, young people, right now have any interest in
joining the military. At Fort Leonard Wood and other areas where we are
going to provide military construction through this appropriations
process, we are not building the Taj Mahal, but we are building
barracks and privatized housing that is going to make living and
working on these facilities not necessarily a joy but someplace where
they can rest their heads at night and feel comfortable and safe. I
thank the chair and subcommittee chair for that addition to this
package.
I want to talk now specifically about H.R. 8282, the Illegitimate
Court Counteraction Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to
provide consideration of this act.
To be honest, I am a little disappointed. I am a little bit disgusted
that, once again, we are having to have these discussions about what we
stand for as a nation, in particular in protecting the Nation of
Israel. It is unfortunate, but it is something that we must do.
Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, and it is under
attack. It has been since October 7. Israel was living in peace until
they were attacked on October 7.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, this time, the attack is coming from the
International Criminal Court, which went as far as seeking an arrest
warrant against Prime Minister Netanyahu for the rightful act of
defending his country against the horrific terrorist attacks of October
7.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented move, and even President Biden
called the arrest warrants ``outrageous.'' The commonsense response to
this outrageous action by the ICC is to pass H.R. 8282.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we will see just how much common sense our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually have.
H.R. 8282 would impose sanctions against ICC officials who
investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a U.S. person or our allies,
including Israel, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli
people the support they truly deserve.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues across the
aisle seem to not understand this very simple concept: We must always
stand with our ally Israel, and we must always stand against any
terrorist organization like Hamas. We must support Israel in their
efforts to eradicate Hamas, which could end this war today, Mr.
Speaker, by releasing all the remaining hostages and surrendering.
Mr. Speaker, recently, we were in Israel visiting with President
Herzog, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the family of Hersh Goldberg, an
American still held hostage by the Hamas butchers in Gaza. What they
are dealing with is a frightening scene, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1000
Prime Minister Netanyahu says: We appreciate the help and support of
the U.S., but let me make one thing clear--Mr. Speaker, this is what
Prime Minister Netanyahu says--we will fight with our fingers if
necessary to win this war.
Mr. Speaker, war is not pretty. We stand with Israel. We will always
stand with Israel, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who
commented on my last comments where I conceded that we weren't perfect
in following the McGovern rule, but I thank him for conceding that we
followed it the overwhelming majority of the time.
Again, I find it really stunning that on a bill that has implications
that my friends can't even respond to, they decided to not only forgo a
hearing and a markup, but they kept on changing the text at the last
minute.
He also was critical of President Biden and his foreign policy, but I
want
[[Page H3592]]
to correct the record on that as well. When the other guy was
President, I will remind the gentleman, Iran didn't just attack Israeli
troops, they attacked U.S. troops. They attacked us.
The gentleman wants to talk about supporting our allies. His side
held up aid for Ukraine for 9 months because their side bought into
Kremlin propaganda. They were more interested in pleasing Vladimir
Putin than they were in standing by our allies in Ukraine.
It was their side, a Republican President, who went to North Korea
and tried to get a brutal dictator to like him. He tried to kowtow to
Kim Jong-Un. It was their side, a Republican President, who tried to
extort our Ukrainian allies by withholding U.S. aid, and then he was
impeached over that.
It was his Republican candidate for President who praises Putin,
fawns over Xi Jinping, says Viktor Orban is fantastic, and sends love
letters to Kim Jong-Un.
It was a Republican President, the previous guy, who stood with
America's adversaries. Contrast that with President Joe Biden.
President Biden rallied the world to Ukraine's defense. President Biden
has defended our ally Israel and their airspace, and President Biden
has rebuilt America's image on the world stage by standing up for
democracy and human rights. I am happy to compare President Biden's
record to the other guy who they seem so in awe of and afraid of every
single day of the week.
I would, again, remind my colleagues that the bill on the
International Criminal Court had no hearing, no markup, no witnesses,
no amendments, closed rule, nothing, and they can't even explain it.
They couldn't even explain it in the Rules Committee last night.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania). The Chair would
also remind Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward
presumptive nominees for the office of President.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for pointing
out the importance of choosing our leaders wisely and choosing those
who would reject tyrannical tendencies themselves or to ally themselves
with tyrants. This reminds me that 250 years ago when the
revolutionaries of our American soil decided to fight to escape the
tyrannical and authoritarian rule of the king, some pushed back. They
were concerned that the people of the beautiful experiment we call
America would not be able to choose the right leader.
Samuel Adams believed that virtue was the soul of democracy. He said
these beautiful words: A moral people will elect moral leaders. A moral
people will elect moral leaders.
I have incredible faith in our American people. I know that they
honor and cherish our Constitution. I know that the American people
will honor the rule of law. Today, I will not speak of the 34 reasons
why I know that the American people are moral people and will elect
moral leaders.
Today, instead, I will speak about the manner in which Americans not
just cherish virtue, rule of law, and our Constitution, Americans also
cherish our veterans and our military. The appropriations bill the
Republicans have presented today does not cherish or honor the
sacrifices our servicemembers made in battle for this country. Instead,
it sacrifices our national security to industries and lobbyists who
don't want us to even acknowledge climate change.
The Republican Speaker last night actually recognized that it would
be common sense to protect our bases from sea rise and flooding, but
this bill strips funding for climate resilience. They would sacrifice
our military readiness for climate denialism.
This bill is a kitchen sink of culture wars rather than one that
honors our servicemembers and veterans. Instead of focusing on what our
military bases need for readiness, Republicans are attacking women's
healthcare, promoting discrimination against LGBTQ veterans, and
denying climate change. This appropriations bill will prevent women
veterans from receiving reproductive healthcare wherever they may live.
If a female veteran's health is at risk during her pregnancy,
Republicans don't want her to get VA care in the full array that she
may need it. If she lives in Texas, Alabama, or a State that took away
her reproductive healthcare, she might find herself waiting in an
emergency room parking lot until she is near death.
I have made difficult decisions about life-threatening conditions
during my own pregnancies. I enjoyed the right to make decisions about
my health with the people I trust and love, my doctors, and my own
faith in God. I want every woman to have the same right, to have access
to healthcare if her health is at risk during pregnancy, especially if
she is a veteran who has served our country.
All veterans deserve our respect wherever they live. That respect is
measured by action, actions that protect healthcare access. This bill
does not show that respect. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, it is amazing that I am hearing my friends across the aisle
complain about closed rules and going through regular order. Again, we
are being gaslit in real time by the left.
I remind my friends across the aisle that at this point in the 117th
Congress--again, when Democrats were in control, this is when Chairman
McGovern ran the Rules Committee--Democrats had made 61 percent of
their rules closed. In this Congress, the GOP has passed 66 more
measures out of the Rules Committee compared with the Democrats at this
point in the 117th.
The GOP is legislating in this Congress. We have proportionally fewer
closed rules over a much larger pool of bills, and 33 percent of our
closed rules were because no amendments were submitted. They were
closed because no one even put forward amendments. In the 118th, 81
percent of the Rules measures that have gone to a floor vote have
garnered bipartisan support for final passage.
Again, Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle like to complain
about amendments being made in order and they like to complain about
regular order, but facts don't lie. They had 61 percent of their bills
with closed rules. I just had a litany of bills that did not go through
regular order. You can't hide from the stats.
Let's not fool ourselves. The American people don't care about arcane
rules of procedure in the House. No one cares about this. What they do
care about are things like foreign policy. It is amazing, like I am
being gaslit on procedures in the House, I am being gaslit about the
last administration's position on foreign policy.
I am sure if you would ask people around the world if they would
rather have President Trump or President Biden, it would be President
Trump, and here is why: President Trump actually killed al-Baghdadi,
and he dismantled ISIS.
When it comes to Iran, he neutralized Soleimani. He also targeted
proxy groups that were controlled by the Iranians in the surrounding
area. He put the Quds Force and the Houthis on the terrorist watch
list, actions the Biden administration has tried to reverse.
He blocked the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which weakened Russia. He had
the Abraham Accords.
We had zero attacks from Russia during the period. Remember, it was
under Obama that Russia came into the Crimea, and then Russia didn't do
anything for 4 years. Then, magically, when the Democrats came in,
showing weakness and vacillation in the face of aggression, then the
Russians invaded more parts of Ukraine.
Also, when it comes to China, it was President Trump who put tariffs
on China and held China to account. The Biden administration has done
very little on that front.
The list goes on and on, but I will leave it at that for the sake of
time.
Talking about being gaslit, we are being gaslit on the ICC, this
international kangaroo court. There is so much disinformation out there
about the ICC, especially regarding their actions on Israel.
Let me just clear some things up. One, the ICC's warrant filings are
factually wrong; two, Israel has conducted itself consistently with
international
[[Page H3593]]
law and its humanitarian obligations; three, the ICC does not have
jurisdiction over Israel as the nation is not an ICC member; and,
fourth, the ICC warrant applications for Israeli leaders threaten U.S.
national security. Let's just get the facts out there. Those are the
facts, and you can't hide from them.
It is amazing how many of my friends across the aisle, beholden to
the extreme far left, want to talk about these make-believe Israeli
transgressions, when they wholeheartedly ignore the transgressions of
international law by Hamas. You want to go through a list of all the
international law that Hamas has broken? Let's do it.
Let's start with targeting civilians; not wearing a uniform; hiding
among civilian populations; storing weapons in places like mosques and
schools; having their military headquarters in a hospital; using
torture, and rape; and deprivation of food, water, and medical aid for
their hostages. This is just a short list, but it is amazing how the
left, controlled by radical, dangerous extremists, refused to call out
Hamas and their violations while latching on to these false perceived
notions that the Israelis are somehow the ones in violation of
international law.
I am sick and tired of the gaslighting. The American people know the
truth, and we are going to see the results of that in a few months.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my friends across the aisle that I
have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are different. I would just say to the gentleman that
is why I am glad the ICC is actually going after Hamas and holding
Hamas accountable. That is a good thing. I am sorry the gentleman
doesn't agree with that.
As far as his numbers go on the rules, that was the most roundabout,
crazy characterization and reconfiguration of numbers to essentially
say and justify the fact that the Republicans are so ineffective and
incompetent in the Rules Committee. I mean, they have lost seven rules.
That has got to be a record. Seven of their own rules--they are in
charge--have gone down. It is amazing when you listen to the gentleman
try to rationalize all that is so irrational about the way the
Republicans are running this place.
I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned now because I was
admonished, again, for referring to the former President and mentioning
a process that the United States Congress actually put forward. I don't
even know what I can say anymore when it comes to the former President
because everything is out of order. My friends on the other side of the
aisle can say whatever they want about President Biden. They can say
whatever they want about anything they want, and there seems to be no
accountability. I am just referring to facts, and I get admonished. I
don't understand this.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment from the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) which is germane and
is compliant with the rules. That amendment would strike anti-trans,
antigay, and anti-veteran provisions from the MILCON-VA appropriations
bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that over 1 million American veterans
are part of the LGBTQ+ community, including 134,000 veterans who are
transgender. We know the Republicans have been fighting to kick trans
people out of the military. Now it is 2024, and it is Pride Month, and
what are House Republicans focused on? They want to deny these
veterans, after they have selflessly defended our Nation, from
receiving the medical care and support that they need.
{time} 1015
They are spending time trying to prevent the VA from flying Pride
flags. With all the discrimination members of the LGBTQ community have
had to endure, Republicans in this bill protect those who discriminate
against same-sex marriages. Of course, this is happening during Pride
Month. The cruelty is the point, Mr. Speaker.
My amendment would simply allow a vote in the House to strike these
backward policy riders from this legislation.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, enough with these Republican attacks on
the LGBTQ+ community. Enough with the bigotry. Enough with the hate.
Enough with the MAGA extremism. We are better than this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. I continue to get gaslit up here. At the
end of the day, facts don't care about your feelings, and numbers don't
lie.
I will distill this argument into two facts right now to show you the
hypocrisy from the other side. Last Congress, the Democrats had 30
pieces of legislation that came outside of regular order.
At this same point in the 117th Congress compared to this Congress,
the 118th, the Democrats had 61 percent of their bills come to the
floor under closed rules. Again, numbers don't lie. Don't sit here and
try to gaslight me.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I say to the gentleman, again, we are talking about today, and my
point was that we have a bill that the witnesses that came before the
Rules Committee couldn't even accurately describe what was in the bill.
They had no idea because it changed so many times, couldn't really
respond to questions about what the implications of the bill would be,
and we are simply pointing out the fact that there was not a single
hearing in the committee of jurisdiction on the legislation, not a
single markup, no witnesses.
My friends bring this to the floor under a completely closed process
so nobody can amend it. Nobody can change anything. Nobody can change a
comma.
That is how the Republicans are running this House of
Representatives, and it is pathetic, quite frankly. It is not the way
the people's House should be run, and it shows disrespect for this
institution. They do that day in and day out.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the contrast is very clear for the American
people. Democrats stand up for traditional American values like
freedom, and Republicans are going all in on authoritarianism.
Democrats want to fight for our democracy. We believe it is worth
fighting for and preserving. Republicans want to attack LGBTQ rights,
women's rights, civil rights, and voting rights. Now they even want to
attack IVF in their quest to control women's bodies. We had a
Republican come before the Rules Committee advocating for that last
night. It was scary, quite frankly.
Democrats believe in science, and Republicans spent the day yesterday
spreading conspiracy theories about COVID and attacking Dr. Fauci.
Democrats stand for our Constitution and the rule of law. Republicans
are falling over themselves to get in the good graces of their
presumptive nominee, a candidate for President who brags on social
media about how he wants a unified Reich. Who says that?
This is a candidate I can't even tell the truth about on the House
floor because he is being treated like a king.
Now, we know someone was convicted of 34 felonies, but we aren't even
allowed to say who. Republicans are spending so much time circling the
wagons around he who must not be named that they are neglecting the job
that the American people sent them here to do.
This Republican Party is totally lost. They are totally disconnected
from what this country is about, and it is a national embarrassment.
Democrats are putting people first. It is as simple as that.
Republicans are putting politics first, and they are running one of the
most incompetent, ineffective sessions of Congress, maybe in American
history, and certainly since I have been here.
[[Page H3594]]
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I am afraid to say
anything more because I am afraid my words will be taken down, and I
will be silenced because this place is becoming so controlled, we have
to be very, very careful of every single word we say here.
I will just conclude by saying this is an awful process. These bills
that are being brought before us are not worthy of all this time and
attention.
They are poorly drafted, and the appropriations bill, which should be
totally bipartisan, they have loaded up with all kinds of MAGA
extremist garbage, and we know it is going nowhere. What a waste of
time. What a waste of time.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
In closing, I don't even know where to begin, describing closed rules
as threats to the institution, as disrespectful, as shameful.
Again, I remind the gentleman that last Congress, they brought 30
pieces of legislation to the floor that had not gone through committee.
At this same time last Congress, 61 percent of their rules were
closed rules. The gaslighting has got to stop.
We are here today to talk about MILCON-VA and the international
kangaroo court known as the ICC. This week when it comes to these two
bills, Americans will see a stark difference between House Republicans
and the dangerous far-left extremists on the other side of the aisle.
Some are saying that the bills are partisan exercises, and they are
full of culture war issues. It is the Republicans that are taking the
culture war issues out of these bills, at least out of MILCON-VA.
If you don't believe me, look at the actions of the VA. Under
President Biden, the VA has gone far left and woke. These include
initiatives in the VA like DEI and CRT. They just waste taxpayer-funded
resources on these far-left culture wars that are coming from the left.
If you don't believe me, just look at the actions of the VA. The
Department backtracked not too long ago after removing the iconic V-J
Day picture from Times Square.
The iconic picture of V-J Day, for whatever reason, wasn't woke and
had to be removed. That is quite amazing coming from the VA.
The VA also removed from their mission statement a quote from Abraham
Lincoln. Why? Because that quote used male pronouns. You can't make
this stuff up.
The Department uses a gender gingerbread person that teaches veterans
and employees that gender is a spectrum, and it is fluid.
How about the Department's focus on the backlog of thousands of
veterans' claims and veterans who can't receive timely care? Maybe they
should focus on that instead of gender-neutral gingerbread men.
That is why House Republicans will pass FY25 MILCON-VA that will
focus the Department's mission back to its core mission, which is
taking care of veterans; not fighting culture war issues.
We protect veterans' Second Amendment rights. We prohibit DEI. We
prevent critical race theory, and we put the Hyde amendment into the
bill.
We are making this bill neutral and bipartisan. We are stripping out
culture war issues that the far-left extremists have put in it.
Lastly, let's talk about the rule before us bringing up the piece of
legislation that will protect U.S. citizens and servicemembers and our
allies, including Israel, and that is to make sure we are working
against the illegitimate sham court, the kangaroo court known as the
ICC.
H.R. 8282 will reimpose the Trump administration sanctions against
the ICC and demonstrate to the world that the United States supports
our number one ally, Israel, and Israel's right of self-defense.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 1269 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
solution, the amendment specified in section 8 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution if offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz of
Florida or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 8. The amendment referred to in section 7 is as
follows:
``Page 77 beginning on line 9, strike section 256.
Page 77 beginning on line 12, strike section 257.
Page 87 beginning on line 12, strike section 416.''.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on the previous question, and I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
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. McGOVERN. 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.
____________________