Teresa Leger Fernandez

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia), to discuss our proposal.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that these draconian spending cuts are necessary because of the deficit, but let's take a step back and think about how we got here in the first place and what we really can do about it. We need to remember that 36 percent of the debt is due to Republican tax cuts, the Iraq war, the Republican war. This does not include the $12.5 billion that Republicans are adding to the deficit from their cuts to the IRS last week. Clearly, Republicans like to talk about this, but they don't fix the problem. Indeed, they are the problem. Their tax cuts are the problem. While the House GOP continues to blame critical social, economic development, and law enforcement programs for the Nation's debt, they hide the fact that if it weren't for those tax cuts enacted under President Bush and President Trump, our debt wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, the report shows that revenues would have kept up with spending if we wouldn't have had these tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, let's remind people where those tax cuts went. Who benefited? The wealthy and the corporations that to this day still do not pay their fair share in taxes. If you want to address the issue of the deficit, let's address the issue of the tax cuts, which you can see on this chart are primarily due to the Trump and the Bush tax cuts, which isn't included on here, or the Reagan tax cuts, which is when we started this downward spiral. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I will touch on the idea that the Trump tax cuts are suddenly the Pelosi tax cuts. That is ridiculous. We know the Trump tax cuts. They claimed them. They want to extend them. In fact, they have already been working on a bill in the Ways and Means Committee that would increase tax cuts for the wealthy, but let's put that aside. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about something else that is in this bill that is very problematic. We know that we are in a period when elections are so key, and preserving the integrity of our elections and making sure that those who work on the democratic process, the day-to- day process of making sure that our elections work, have all the help that they can get. Right now, State and local election administrators are working hard to make sure that is possible, but they are afraid. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 2023 Brennan Center poll analysis about the high turnover of election officials amid safety threats and political interference.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4664 would make it harder for those hardworking election officials to do their jobs. This bill cuts funding for the Election Assistance Commission by $8 million. That funding helps State and local officials administer fair, free, and secure elections. H.R. 4664 would also eliminate funding for election security grants. In New Mexico, the secretary of State has used that money for security trainings and to enhance voter registration. Don't we all want more people to vote? I know Democrats do. Indiana, as an example, has used funds for election security and to upgrade voting equipment. This bill says to those election administrators: Good luck. We are not helping you anymore with these kinds of Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, that is not all. This bill includes multiple riders that would allow private companies, nonprofits, and government contractors to keep their political spending secret. This type of secrecy leads the American public to lose faith in our representative government. Our constituents deserve transparency and to know that we work for them and not some special interest group. Let's put this bill aside and instead take up one that our democracy deserves. We must always be working to that more perfect Union that our Constitution calls out, but it requires work and funding our elections at adequate levels. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, think about this rule. It sets out many amendments, and that is what we have been seeing when we have been coming to the floor. We come down and spend 10 minutes debating amendments that would reduce somebody's salary to $1, but then it loses overwhelmingly. Over and over, we keep coming to the floor and debating these amendments that are nonstarters from the beginning, but we are taking up precious floor time to do that. Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment that isn't in this rule that passed out of committee on a 30-30 vote. It was highly bipartisan and didn't make it into the underlying bill. We asked last night if we couldn't bring an amendment like this that clearly has bipartisan support to the floor so that House Members would be able to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, that amendment was the bipartisan Aguilar-Ciscomani amendment, which would have allowed DACA recipients to work for the Federal Government. Remember, Dreamers can lawfully work for State, local, and Tribal governments and in the private sector. Americans overwhelmingly support Dreamers who were brought to this country at a young age and grew up here. Up to 73 percent of voters in battleground States support Dreamers and their ability to work. This is the kind of amendment that this rule should have made in order. I am disappointed that it didn't. Mr. Speaker, as noted, after waiting weeks for the Republicans to stop their infighting, we have just 10 days to fund the government. However, my colleagues across the aisle have brought forward a bill that slashes crucial funding for agencies that protect hardworking Americans. Remember, this bill is 58 percent below what was appropriated last year. What does it do? It makes it easier for scammers, fraudsters, and cheaters to exploit vulnerable citizens, including our seniors and children, and makes it easier for them to get away with it. The proposed cuts to agencies like the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission would expose families to greater risk, all while protecting the interests of the wealthy and the well connected. As if that wasn't enough, this bill reduces support for election officials by eliminating funding for election security grants. In June, Congressional Republicans and Democrats and President Biden made a deal to keep the lights on, and we passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act into law. Mr. Speaker, 149 Republicans voted for that law. Americans expect us to live up to our word. Americans expect us to live up to our promise. Americans expect us to live up to a law that came out of significant and intense negotiation as to what the funding level for government would be. Unfortunately, Republicans broke that promise. They didn't even wait a week before they broke that promise. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, I, too, rise in opposition to amendment No. 86. As noted, this amendment would roll back protections for Federal lands and Federal lands only within a 10-mile area around the World Heritage Site, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, in New Mexico, in my district, and only from new oil and gas drilling. I stand here on the second day of Native American Heritage Month, and what we are doing on the second day of Native American Heritage Month is not recognizing, honoring, and protecting Native American heritage. Instead, what this amendment is doing is destroying Native American heritage. It is destroying the ability of Native Americans who hold these lands and these sites sacred to continue to practice their spiritual and religious beliefs. Let's remember that what you are doing is undermining the ability of people to practice their historic spiritual and religious beliefs because not only is Chaco County a World Heritage Site, but it remains to this day a place of cultural and religious significance to the descendants of the Greater Chaco region. We need to remember that Chaco Canyon is unique. Between A.D. 900 and 1150, Chaco was the heart of ceremonial, trade, and political activity for the Ancestral Puebloans. The sweeping ceremonial center you need to go visit is unlike anything constructed before or since. However, for the Native Americans who come from this area, Chaco is not an old place. The sacred nature of Chaco continues unbroken in its importance to them today. Given its history, you can imagine the importance of protecting this land and its people's ability to truly practice their faith. It is true that there are different points of view within the Navajo Nation, but let's remember how this bill and how these protections that have been put into place came to be. It was the former Navajo Nation president who first approached the Pueblos in an effort to protect these lands. The advocacy for these protections began in 2013 when the Eastern Navajo Agency Council passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new fracking activities within their agency. Navajo Nation's advocacy continued, and in 2017, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the All Pueblo Council of Governors joined together in a statement opposing new fracking in the Greater Chaco region. Protecting Chaco then became a collaborative process. It resulted eventually in the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act, which passed this body in the 116th Congress with the support of every Democrat and 17 Republicans. The secretarial withdrawal this amendment attacks only happened after an extensive process of public engagement that included consultation with all the Tribal nations, including the Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and those people who live in Arizona as well who are actually constituents of the sponsor of this amendment. Mr. Chair, 100,000 public comments is not ignoring the people. That is listening to them. It was years of Tribal collaboration that made these protections possible. Mr. Chair, let me correct the record. This does not affect in any way Navajo allottees' land. It does not affect in any way Navajo Tribal lands. It does not affect in any way rights-of-way or any infrastructure that is needed. The existing oil and gas activity can continue, and new oil and gas activity can continue, but just not on Federal lands. The existing royalties that are presently going to the Navajo allottees will continue in force, but we must admit that these withdrawals and protections are difficult. You must weigh the cultural and spiritual significance of an area that could be lost forever against the value of mineral development. One molecule of gas is the same wherever it is extracted, but once you destroy a sacred site, you will never get it back. I believe, even though I recognize the importance of the economic value of withdrawal, that we must err on the side of protection. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, the Republicans' Interior Appropriations bill attacks our environment and the opportunity for our prosperity in communities that have historically been left behind. This bill stands in stark contrast to Democratic values and priorities. Last Congress, the Democratic House, Senate, and President recognized that for too long rural communities have lost jobs, people, and economic vibrancy. As someone from and representing rural communities, changing this trajectory is my purpose and my passion in Congress. It is also my duty to bring rural voices to this Chamber, especially at times when Republicans' extreme bills will hurt our precious rural communities. I know many of my colleagues in this room are also concerned about the rural communities where they live, yet rather than investing in places of promise, Republicans are using their appropriation bills to undermine that promise. Indeed, their Interior-Environment bill cuts programs from the Inflation Reduction Act, our landmark law that we passed last year that marked the largest climate investment in U.S. history. They want to cut that Act by $9.4 billion. This includes slashing the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund by $7.8 billion. That fund allows us to address the climate crisis while investing in jobs and capital improvements in rural America and other communities across the country that have been left behind. This program is an opportunity to remedy decades of underinvestment and to protect our beautiful lands, our beautiful environment, for generations. I hear my Republican colleagues talk a lot about energy independence, yet they attack the programs that would actually help us achieve energy independence, true energy independence, not relying on foreign oil and Russia and others who would control the prices that we pay at home. We also know that pollution especially hurts the same communities that we fail to invest in, communities that are often places where Latinos and other people of color live. This bill does not attack that pollution. Instead, it cuts $1.4 billion needed to address environmental health impacts. It tells those communities that they are not a priority. It tells them that we are not going to make things right for their health or for the environment. What is worse is that this bill cuts funding for the environmental agencies and council that work to protect our environment and public health, because health is directly tied to environmental pollution. Last Congress, Democrats made historic investments in rural America's infrastructure, the most investments since the New Deal and the rural electrification program. In contrast, in the extreme Interior bill, Republicans would roll back all that progress. We can't face the climate crisis on a 1991 EPA budget, which is what this bill would do. For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike the four provisions of the bill that cut programs for the Inflation Reduction Act, including the $7.8 billion cuts from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It would also cut $1.4 billion to the Environmental and Climate Justice Grants--I would make sure that those were not cut; all remaining funding from the Council on Environmental Quality for environmental and climate data collection and ``efficient and effective;'' and all remaining funding for the National Park System for deferred maintenance. We know our parks need the care that they deserve. They are America's promise, and we are ignoring them and letting them deteriorate. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the text of my amendment. Ms. Leger Fernandez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4821 to the Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment: Strike sections 438, 439, 474, and 475.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, just 3 days ago, Democrats voted to keep our government open. We told America how Republicans were slashing vital programs in their extreme appropriations bills. We voted down the Republican plan to drastically cut programs that keep our babies, children, and their mothers from going hungry, cut public school funding, cut agricultural investments, and cut support for small businesses. That is what the Republicans wanted to do. The American people heard our warnings, and their voices rang through Congress. Finally, we had a clean continuing resolution without those cuts on the House floor. With support from the American people, Democrats led the way in keeping our government open. It is a continuation of our work from last Congress where Democrats passed laws to make investments in our future energy independence and in our vision for rural development that has been lacking for decades. In Jeremiah 29:11, the Lord says: My plan is not for you to suffer, but for you to prosper, have hope and a future. Democrats showed that we are ready and willing to make that prosperity plan a reality for Americans and especially for rural America. For too long in rural America and in rural New Mexico, our families have been leaving the farms and ranches that give us our identity, our ``herencia y cultura,'' ``heritage and culture,'' and importantly, that give us the food we eat. Last year, Democrats passed bill after bill to change this trend. We want to invest in rural America. Through the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act, we can build the next generation of innovation in places like rural New Mexico. I am looking forward to an enchanted innovation hub in New Mexico. Now that Republicans are in charge, they want to gut those bills, making rural families pay more and get less. The Republican energy bill we are considering today wants to gut rural projects, like the SunZia line in Corona, New Mexico, which just installed the largest wind farm in the country. I call it the Route 66 of renewable energy. These wind farms are generating revenues for multiple local ranchers. Let me tell you something. Many ranchers in the country don't make a profit. The USDA reported in 2020 that ranchers didn't generate enough profit to cover their own living expenses and debt obligations for 9 out of 10 years. The Democrat prosperity plan changes that equation and allows ranchers to earn revenue from clean energy and from food production. What is more, a wind farm in a rural county like Lincoln, New Mexico, will provide $1.3 billion in taxes in 30 years. Lincoln County has never seen such revenue before and can use it to invest in rural healthcare and behavioral health. Rather than build on the transformational investments that Democrats made to support our rural communities, what are the Republicans doing? They are gutting our progress. They want to look backward. Indeed, all the appropriations bills that the Republicans are putting forth hurt American competitiveness, they hurt rural areas, and they hurt families who need to save money. Rather than incentivizing the programs that our children will need to save this planet and outcompete China, Republicans are taking us backward. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for a future where the Democratic prosperity plan can become a reality. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, this extreme Republican bill reveals their mean-spirited values more than any words they utter. Those values are to kick 275,000 young, 4-year-old children out of Head Start. Republicans hypocritically talk about fentanyl but then defund the law enforcement officers who seize this deadly drug. This bill deprives that brother, sister, daughter, a friend of yours that you might have who is battling mental health or addiction, of the funds they use. Don't talk about fentanyl. Don't talk about addiction if you are not going to fund the law enforcement and the health resources we need to truly tackle that. Madam Speaker, then they slash BAA funding by 30 percent, including slashing the Tribal law enforcement officers who are out there also interdicting and protecting us from criminal activity. The CR really reveals who extreme Republicans are--``sin verguenza,'' ``without shame'' about hurting those most vulnerable, cutting programs for our world communities by 30 percent. I stand for rural America--this bill does not, and it puts down our ranchers and farmers. If they don't get their way, what will they do? They will shut the government down. Let's remind everybody, every time we have a government shutdown of any note, it is because Republicans did it under their leadership, and they hurt everybody in the process. And why? To protect the rich and the wealthy. To protect the rich and the wealthy, the extreme Republicans will cut Social Security. They have said it. We have the words. They will do it. They will slash public school funding horribly--horribly--for those schools that most need it. They will criminalize abortion. Over and over again they have told us what they intend to do in their appropriation bills. They are going to make it hard for women to get access to the healthcare they need and they deserve everywhere. I say that this bill is ``sin verguenza,'' ``without shame.''

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment which includes two of my amendments. The USDA Office of Tribal Relations serves as the vital, single point of contact for our rural communities as they work through what is available for them. As we know, our Tribal communities are rural, and they must have access to the USDA Office of Tribal Relations. My amendment No. 4 would restore funding levels for the USDA Office of Tribal Relations. Separately, my amendment No. 25 would increase funding to USDA Rural Development by $7 million to use these funds to improve its oversight of the Section 515 loan program for Rural Rental Housing. Outrageously, in my district, three of these properties have experienced serious management and maintenance issues. The city of Espanola even condemned a property recently. This has left residents in unsafe conditions. USDA needs the necessary research to make sure its properties are livable. Mr. Chair, while I am in favor of this en bloc, I must state again my opposition to the appropriations bill itself. I previously stood on this floor in opposition to the severe cuts to our rural communities. We must prioritize our rural communities, not cut them to 2007 levels. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, but I am opposed to the bill itself.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Cole for the dignity and respect that he shows each of his colleagues on the Rules Committee. It is a great honor to be debating this rule with him this afternoon. I must, however, rise in opposition to the rule because we only have six legislative days left to fund the government, and we are considering only one of the eleven bills that we must pass to fully fund our Federal Government. I completely agree with our chair that our country is a beacon of hope and that we must, indeed, fund our military in the way that they need in order to continue to provide that beacon of hope and that strength that we must communicate both to our allies and those who would do us harm. Indeed, America is facing significant security threats from a rampaging Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and a soon-to-be nuclear North Korea. Instead of uniting us, however, against those very real threats, extreme MAGA Republicans are putting Americans at war with each other with this divisive Defense appropriations bill. Extreme MAGA Republicans are weakening our military readiness. In the Senate, Republicans are refusing to allow votes on flag officers, so we don't have the generals, admirals, and top military officers we need to lead our troops. Here in the House, instead of passing what should be and has historically been a bipartisan Defense appropriations bill, extreme Republicans are inserting the kitchen sink of culture war issues that we have seen too often. Indeed, when we talk about women, this bill is another step in their march toward a national abortion ban. If this bill is enacted, a servicewoman in a State with a total abortion ban that doesn't have exceptions for rape would not be able to take leave and get help to travel to a place like New Mexico where a woman's right to receive the full access to reproductive healthcare is honored. Fourteen States have a total ban on abortion. In each of those 14 States, we will find servicewomen who are honorably serving our Nation. In addition, this bill sets up minorities and our servicemembers who are gay, lesbian, and all individuals of the LGBTQ community to harassment. At a moment when we know that some of our bases are under threat from climate change, this bill cuts $714 million from climate resiliency programs. I have been to our bases in the Pacific islands, and I recognize that we must have climate resilience if we don't want our bases to be under water. By giving up on preparing for climate resiliency, we are giving up a strategic military advantage that we should take advantage of. Instead of focusing on how we can improve recruitment from our diverse communities in America when we are failing to meet our recruitment goals, this appropriation prohibits funding for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. We know that people of color answer the call to service at disproportionately higher rates, and those numbers are not reflected in military leadership. This bill tells my Latino and Native American communities they are not valued. Congressman Neguse asked the Defense Subcommittee chair why he would cut funding for the chief diversity officer, a position that he had voted to create. The chair responded that it was the best way to get attention. That is how we legislate now, to get attention? Last week, in the Rules Committee, we tried to remedy some of these awful and unnecessary riders. Republicans voted our amendments down. All of these divisive riders harm our military readiness and hurt our servicemembers, servicemembers who put their lives on the line to protect us. It is never enough to just thank our servicemembers for their service. We need to provide them with the benefits, quality of life, and respect that all of them deserve. These extreme provisions are a trend this year, however. Perhaps that is the reason we have passed only one appropriations bill under Republican leadership in the House this year. This Defense appropriations bill is the only one that we appear to be considering today. We are not considering a short-term funding package to ensure our government doesn't shut down. We are not considering something to cover all the appropriations bills. Today, we are considering the Defense appropriations bill, and it should be focused solely on national security. It should be about making sure our Nation has the best and brightest force. It should be about serving all the individuals who protect us. We should be unified in making sure our servicemembers have the resources they need and the respect they deserve. Instead, this bill attacks access to reproductive healthcare for our servicewomen and their families. It devalues the minorities, the Latinos, Black Americans, Native Americans, who serve and are looking for us to help them address the racism that still exists, unfortunately. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am also thinking about last week's committee hearing and this discussion about the history of where we were with regard to the appropriations process. I think there is a very different mood this year than we had in the last cycle, and that is the fact that Democrats have never called to shut it down. That is exactly what we are hearing from Republicans on the other side of the aisle. We never took that position. We were always trying to work it out, not shut it down. Even though we might not have passed all the bills by September 30, we were working across the aisle with our colleagues, working with the Senate on the other side, so we never had a shutdown. What we had was constant movement toward an agreement. Indeed, the passed appropriations bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, both in the Senate and the House. We had hundreds of Republicans voting with the Democrats to pass the last appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my good friend, who I hold in high regard.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we just noted, the chair of the committee has once again showed both his dignity and respect to his colleagues. I do want to point out that you are right, I did forget about that 72-hour shutdown because it was very brief, and I agree with you, it is a stupid thing to do. No, I am sorry, I think you said it is a dumb thing to do, and it is because it causes so much pain for the people back home. They expect us to do our job, and the primary thing we are supposed to do is fund our government because it is not just the really hardworking employees who keep our airplanes flying in the air, who make sure that our food is inspected so we don't get sick, it is also the teachers in our schools who receive Title I funding in New Mexico. So many of my schools receive Title I funding. Those are the schools that have the fewest resources, so the Federal Government helps them out to make sure all our children, wherever they live, can get a good education. Those are the things that will be lost if we shut down the Federal Government. I point out that in contrast to the 72 hours, in 1995 under Republican leadership, 21 days the government was shut down; in 2013 the government was shut down for 16 days; and then in 2018 they shut it down for 35 days. This is a refrain we hear over and over again. It happens under House Republican leadership so often as we just saw. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas), a wonderful Member of our freshman class this year.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The concern that we have with the bill with regards to a woman's right to be able to determine for herself in conversation with her own faith, her own family, and her own doctors what kind of reproductive healthcare she wants access to is the fact that this bill would prevent servicewomen and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to obtain an abortion or related services if those services are not provided where she is assigned. Remember, servicewomen don't get to choose where they live and where they work. There have already been multiple legal opinions that using paid leave and traveling and getting assistance to get to a State where you can get medical care does not violate the Hyde amendment. Indeed, the Hyde amendment would allow you to get that kind of care if you were raped. Well, guess what? In 14 States if you were raped, you cannot get that care. That would violate the Hyde amendment in a sense when you cannot get access to it. Last week in the Rules Committee, Representative McCollum told the story of a woman in Texas who was told by her doctor that she would not perform a surgical procedure to remove a dead fetus because of the State's abortion ban. That servicewoman did not have the options she was entitled to. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the 2023 New York Times article: ``As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians From Red States, Maternity Care Suffers.''

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Because what has changed is that now we have 14 States that have total bans on abortion, so we must do more to honor our commitment to our servicewomen. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our ranking member on the Rules Committee.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think what Americans know is that for too long, Republicans have been protecting the rich and the corporations who do not pay their taxes. When we start talking about spending, we need to talk about what we are spending that money for. Democrats are investing in rural America. They are investing in our children. They are investing in our infrastructure. What are Republicans doing? Yes, they are adding to that deficit. Republicans put $2 trillion on that credit card in tax cuts for the rich. The leader they worship, Donald Trump, put $7.5 trillion onto that deficit. The very first bill they brought to the floor of this Congress, what did it add? $114 billion to that cut. That is what we need to talk about, not just how they want to cut investments and important things like heating for our families who need it, our seniors, and our veterans. What are they doing? They are trying to make sure that they don't have to tax the rich and wealthy corporations. Many, as we heard last night, don't pay anything in taxes. Yes, we do want to talk about Social Security. I am so glad the chair brought this up because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans often swear that they are not going to cut Social Security and Medicare. Last night, when we met on the continuing resolution, there is an 8 percent cut across the board for everything but defense and veterans. Their continuing resolution has a 66 percent cut to heating assistance. They have said border security is their top priority, but the very CR we are scheduled to consider cuts funding for DHS by over 8 percent. While they claim they won't cut Social Security and Medicare, their own continuing resolution, the language in the bill itself, demonstrates that nothing is sacred to them. I am going to offer my friends, my dear friends, a chance to show the American people that they are serious about preserving Social Security and Medicare. I urge you all to join us in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which plainly states that the people's House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that so many of my constituents, so many of your constituents, rely on. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin) to discuss our proposal.