Providing for Consideration of H.R. Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 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. Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 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''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. 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. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Scholten) to discuss our very important proposal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source