Seth Moulton

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simple. First, it will add $2 million to the Army Threat Integration Center to protect our troops and their families from terrorist attacks. ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups are directly threatening Americans, our troops, and our allies abroad every single day. In fact, a group related to ISIS recently posted the photos and addresses of about 100 hundred U.S. troops online so that, in their words, ``our brothers residing in America can deal with you.'' Our military families have also been threatened with attacks. We can't stand idly by; we must act, and this additional funding will help. The amendment also adds $2 million for the Yellow Ribbon reintegration program to help Active Duty and National Guard troops. As a veteran myself, I know just how difficult the reintegration process can be. In fact, I am in regular contact with many of the marines from my platoon, and we talk about this every day. These men and women have put their lives on the line for our country and our freedom. We owe it to them to provide them with the resources they need both on and off the battlefield. Lastly, this amendment adds $5 million for Joint Warfighter Medical Research, which provides the latest cutting-edge techniques to save injured troops on the battlefield. The men and women who fight on our behalf should know that we have their backs at the most difficult times. These initiatives are fully paid for with a reasonable and commonsense reduction in funding for Defense Media Activity, which provides magazines and movies for our military. I ask my colleagues: Is it more important to fund the fight against ISIS or to fund government-sponsored Scooby Doo? After all, if the troops really want to watch it, they can get their cartoons on their smartphones anyway. Rarely in this Chamber do we have a choice that is so clear. Let's take a small step to improve this bill for our military families and for our troops. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) for the time, and for all the work that he has done, along with Mr. Lynch, on behalf of our Commonwealth's fishing communities. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which clarifies the uses of NOAA's asset forfeiture fund so we can make smart investments in scientific research and preserve an economically viable fishing industry. This amendment will provide our fishermen, shoreside businesses, and fishing communities with the assurance that the money in NOAA's asset forfeiture fund will go towards improving the science behind sustainable fishery management practices. Additionally, the amendment offers fisheries councils the resources they need to better serve our fisheries and fishing communities. At the end of the day, both the fishermen and the environmentalists want the same thing: healthy and sustainable fisheries. I believe that the amendment will help achieve this objective through meaningful and targeted uses of NOAA's asset forfeiture fund. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee just rejected an amendment to the defense bill that I offered to protect our troops on the front line by shifting funds from the A-10, an airplane the Air Force and the Department of Defense don't want, to unfunded priorities for IED protection and other things our front-line infantry troops desperately need. Thousands of young American men and women have been killed by IEDs in the past decade. If the A-10 is so critical, why has neither the Army nor the Marine Corps, which many troops feel provides the best close air support in the world, asked for A-10s themselves? With a limitless budget we would all love to have the A-10 and other weapons. But our troops know that we live in a real world with real tradeoffs. And America expects us to make the politically difficult decisions to protect our shared national security and the lives of young Americans whom we ask to defend it.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Thank you, Congressman Swalwell. Mr. Speaker, the veterans are coming home from our wars, and they want to serve again. And that is one of the most amazing things about today's veterans and about millennials in general is that there is a supreme desire to serve, to serve their country. You know, one of the toughest jobs to get out of college now is not a job in investment banking on Wall Street; it is a job serving in Teach For America. One of the amazing things that I have found about those who have served, both in civilian service and veterans from our military services, is that we get out and we actually want to serve again. Frankly, when I went into the military, I thought I would do my 4 years and kind of check that box and no one would ever question for the rest of my life whether I wanted to serve the country again. Yet then I got out and found I really missed it. I missed that sense of public service, that sense of duty, that sense that every single day my work impacted the lives of other people. So veterans come home, and they don't just want a paycheck. They don't just want a retirement. They don't just want health care. They want to actually contribute to the country back here at home. But in order to do that, they have got to be able to transition into life back here as a civilian. That is tough. That is tough today because many of the basic health care needs of veterans are not being taken care of. They are not given the opportunities to pursue jobs in the private sector. So that great opportunity for our Nation's veterans to serve again is squandered because we are not taking care of them when they get home. There are some fascinating statistics about how successful veterans are in the civilian workforce. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately veterans. And yet veterans are also disproportionately homeless. So how does that happen?

Mr. MOULTON. Absolutely. There is so much that veterans can do back here at home. The point with my story about how veterans are disproportionately successful and yet also disproportionately homeless, I think it all comes back to that transition. Because if you are a veteran who can come home and navigate the transition to work in the civilian sector successfully, because you get the health care that you need, if you have post-traumatic stress--which is an entirely treatable condition--you get it taken care of. Then you can use all those skills and experiences that you had in the military, that leadership training, that experience performing under the toughest circumstances on Earth, you will use that for success in the business world and back here at home in whatever you do. But if you don't make that transition successfully, if you don't get the health care that you need to take care of whatever conditions you have from your service, then you can literally become homeless. And that is why this transition is so important. The point is that veterans have a lot to give back to our country. So I think most Americans understand that we have a moral obligation to take care of our veterans, that for all they have done for us overseas risking their lives, we ought to take care of them when they get back. And most Americans get that. But it is also just a smart investment. It is a smart investment in our economy, and it is a smart investment in America's future to take care of our veterans.

Mr. MOULTON. We live in an information economy. You are from Silicon Valley, you represent Silicon Valley. There is so much need for tech savvy, technically trained employees in our workforce. You get extraordinary training in the military, whether you are in the infantry, you are on the ground in one of those toughest jobs where your ability to lead in the most difficult circumstances imaginable is critical, or even if you are sitting controlling a drone back in Arizona and just understanding how our most advanced technology works, if you are able to manage that, then you are going to be incredibly valuable back home. We have got to take care of our veterans to get there. A lot of veterans have post-traumatic stress, and it has kind of created this stigma that if you hire a veteran, you might get someone who has some mental issues. But the reality is that post-traumatic stress, first of all, is a pretty normal thing to expect after what many veterans have gone through overseas, but it is entirely treatable. It shouldn't be unusual to think that someone who went through the rigors of combat, the tragedy of war, would be affected by that. But we know that we can take care of that condition and treat it appropriately, and then veterans can serve again when they get back home.

Mr. MOULTON. First of all, we need a lot of reform at the VA, and this has been much publicized across the country. Of course, there are some VA's that are doing all right, doing fairly well. There are others that are completely failing our veterans. It shouldn't matter where you are from or where you live. You should be able to go to a VA facility and get the care that you need, the care that you have earned, and the care that you deserve. A lot of veterans just aren't seeing that. Some people ask me how often do I hear from fellow veterans who are struggling to get the care that they need at the VA. I can tell you I have heard from two marines in my second platoon just in the past week. They have asked for my help as a new Congressman just getting the access to care that they need. You shouldn't have to go to your Congressman to be able to get the care that you need at the VA. Some interesting statistics about the VA: the peak of claims from World War I, the year when the most World War I veterans sought care at the VA, was not 1920 or 1925. It was 1969-1969. So that tells us two things. First, it says that the VA as we know it today was really built to deal with a different generation of veterans, not Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, not even Vietnam veterans. The second thing it tells us is that if the VA can't take care of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans today, we haven't even begun to see the beginning of the problem. A lot of Vietnam veterans are just now coming to the VA because they realize that their cancer or Parkinson's has to do with the Agent Orange exposure they received some 40 years ago. So we have a lot of changes to make at the VA, and I think that the new Secretary, to the question, is doing a good job, and he is certainly moving in the right direction. But we need radical change, and it remains to be seen just how effective his work will be.

Mr. MOULTON. I love the question because we have never had fewer veterans in our Congress in our Nation's history than we do today. I don't think it should be a litmus test you have to be a veteran to run for Congress, not at all. But at a time when we face unprecedented challenges across the globe, when we are involved in so many challenges overseas, that perspective of veterans is critically important. We can't just have the perspective of older veterans. We need younger veterans too, veterans of the wars in the Middle East, veterans who have had to fight counterinsurgencies, veterans who faced terrorists across the globe. Those are the challenges that we are figuring out how to meet in Congress. I think it is important that we have the perspective of veterans. So I will tell you, if there are veterans out there who are listening to this right now, I hope you will consider running. We need you. We need new leaders. We need your perspective, and we would love to see you serve the country again.

Mr. MOULTON. I am honored to serve with you.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the Republican budget because of the way that it treats our Nation's veterans. As I have said during the Budget Committee debates, the Republican proposal does not provide our past and present servicemembers with the resources they need upon their return. Protecting our veterans is not an option--it is our duty. We owe it to our veterans to provide them with quality health care, education, job training, and the long-term treatment they have earned through their service to our Nation. It is more than just a moral obligation. It is also a wise investment in America's future. The Greatest Generation was not called ``the Greatest Generation'' in 1946. That term didn't come about until the 1990s. It had as much to do with what our veterans of World War II did after the war, when they came home, as with what they did in it. To ensure success for today's veterans, we need to do much better than the Republican proposal.

Mr. MOULTON. As a veteran, I see firsthand that insufficient funding for VA programs creates an environment in which our veterans fall through the cracks. I do not support simply throwing money at the current bureaucracy, but insufficient funding for the VA and its programs will only exacerbate this problem. We ought to be able to agree that caring for our veterans should be a national priority. The budget before us today fails to prioritize our servicemen and -women, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, no budget is ever perfect, but the Democratic resolution invests the most in our future by placing American families, students, and military servicemembers first.

Mr. MOULTON. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, the great ranking member and leader of the Budget Committee. Mr. Chairman, when I took this office, I vowed to work in a bipartisan fashion, and I am committed to doing that. I have been pleasantly surprised at how many Republicans are willing--even eager-- to work across party lines. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Republican budget before us today. The Republican budget not only fails to grow our economy, but it deprives many Americans of the resources and support they need to succeed. A budget is a value statement, and it is clear that what the Republicans are proposing today is bad for our working families, for our students, and for our veterans. I was proud to offer two amendments last week during the House Budget Committee markup, addressing issues that should have broad bipartisan support: our veterans and our students. Unbelievably, my Republican colleagues voted against funding to protect the VA from future government shutdowns and to provide more financial support to help students get the vocational training they need to succeed in a 21st century workplace.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Swalwell. I think our Republican colleagues have a point, which is that we need to have a debate about immigration. This is an issue facing our country, it is a serious issue, and in many respects, it has reached crisis proportions. We need to talk about it, we need to have that debate, but it cannot be at the expense of our Nation's security. I just returned from a weeklong trip to the Middle East--to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to the UAE, to Kuwait, and to Jordan--to try to understand the situation on the ground and especially the threat that ISIL or Daesh poses to the United States of America. I can tell you that that threat is serious and severe. There are those who think that this will just be a Middle Eastern problem, that it won't ever come to infect our homeland. I don't share that view. I think it is a serious threat. ISIL has brutally killed Americans abroad and made clear their intentions to kill Americans here at home. That is the kind of protection from threats like that that the Department of Homeland Security provides. We cannot put our Nation's security at risk for a debate that is critical, that needs to happen, but that is separate from keeping Americans safe. Our most sacred responsibility as Members of Congress is to protect our homeland. Right now, the partisan brinksmanship around funding the Department of Homeland Security is putting that safety at risk. I served my country for four tours in Iraq. I was proud to serve, I was proud to go every time, but I don't want to see Americans have to keep going back to that part of the world because we can't provide for our security here at home. We have a lot of work to do in this Congress, and a lot of it requires bipartisan cooperation. Immigration is one of those issues. It is an issue that we need to debate on the floor of the House. We need to take up the Senate bill for comprehensive immigration reform, debate its merits, and decide whether it does enough to ensure the safety of our borders and the future of those who aspire to be Americans, but none of that should happen at the expense of our Nation's security. The crisis that we are facing today is the result of partisan politics that places the safety and the lives of the American people at risk. Last week I returned from a trip to the Middle East, and I learned that the threat of a terrorist attack on the United States is real. Terrorist organizations including ISIL pose a serious national security threat and have made clear their intentions to commit acts of terrorism both abroad and here at home. Our number one responsibility as members of Congress is to prevent that from happening and keep Americans safe. Holding hostage the funding for the Department of Homeland Security over the President's executive action on immigration is a disservice to the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday both at home and abroad to protect us all. There is no doubt that Congress needs to address immigration reform. It is an issue that is deserving of a debate and I look forward to participating in that discussion with both Democrats and Republicans. However, attaching immigration policy to this appropriations legislation is simply irresponsible and hijacks the intellectual debate that should take place on this Floor. If you disagree with the President's actions, then let's have that debate. However, with such threats to the security of the American people, now is not the time to play political games with an agency that is charged with protecting the homeland from acts of terrorism. If Congress fails to fund the Department of Homeland Security, agencies and grant programs critical to the safety of Americans will no longer be able to carry out the responsibilities that they were created to uphold, including the TSA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the United States Coast Guard. 85% of all enlisted Coast Guard personnel do not live on base--they cannot afford to miss a rent or mortgage payment on their homes. Many Americans don't realize this, but not only are Coast Guardsmen important to the safety of fishermen in my home state of Massachusetts and to all coastal states, but they are also deployed globally alongside our military in support of critical national security missions. When I was in Iraq, I needed to focus on the mission. For Coast Guard personnel performing high-risk drug cartel interdictions or patrolling the Persian Gulf, we needed their 100% focus on the mission at hand. So last summer when an Iranian boat aimed a 50 caliber machine gun at American Coast Guardsmen deployed in international waters in the Persian Gulf, those are the American men and women in harm's way who would still be required to put their lives on the line despite not receiving a paycheck so that their families at home can put food on the table and pay rent. In my home state of Massachusetts, we recently experienced a series of historic snow storms that resulted in record-breaking snow accumulation and caused millions of dollars in damages to homes, business and roadways. Without the support of funding from FEMA, Massachusetts will have to bear the brunt of the clean-up and repair costs in spite of the likelihood that Massachusetts will be eligible for federal disaster aid relief. Further, failure to pass an appropriations bill for DHS would furlough or deny payment to the 4,735 law enforcement officials, disaster response officials and many other homeland security personnel in Massachusetts. Republicans know that the right thing to do is to fund the department. This is why, earlier today, the Senate passed a clean bill to fund the department. This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. I implore the Republicans to have the debate on immigration, and have it soon. Talk about our differences there, but let's not put our citizens, our country, and our allies at risk by holding funding for the Department of Homeland Security hostage. I'd like to thank my friend from California again for the opportunity to speak this evening.

Mr. MOULTON. What I hear from young people is they want the Congress to get things done for the American people. Our job is to come here and debate the important issues of the day, but, ultimately, it is to get things accomplished, it is to pass bills, it is to make laws, it is to fund important institutions of our government. What people say is they want us to get it done. They want us to have that debate on immigration reform, they want us to do that, too, but they need funding for the Department of Homeland Security. My generation has grown up under the threat that we came to face on September 11. Many of my friends were in New York on that perilous day and watched the planes crash into the World Trade Center towers. It is a remarkable testament to the success of the Department of Homeland Security that, over the past decade, we have not had another attack. It is a remarkable achievement. We should not put that achievement at risk.

Mr. MOULTON. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. There is no question that their morale and their mission effectiveness will be hurt. In fact, it will hurt my own morale because I am very proud to serve in the United States Congress, but I am not going to be proud to walk through that security gate and have to look them in the eye when they recognize that I am partly responsible, as a Member of this body, for not giving them the basic pay that they need for their families. You know, another element of the Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. Coast Guard, and many of us know that the U.S. Coast Guard protects our shores. I represent the fishing community of Gloucester north of Boston, and Gloucester has gone through some hard times and has often had to rely on the Coast Guard to save its fishermen in the worst storms. Those Coast Guardsmen not only protect fishermen in Gloucester. They also work with our military and Department of Defense overseas. There are Coast Guardsmen and -women stationed in the Middle East today. Can you imagine having to do such a difficult mission, to be in the Persian Gulf defending American ships against the threat of an Iranian attack and yet not knowing whether your rent will be paid back at home? That is an unacceptable risk for us to take, and it is an unacceptable burden for us to ask them to bear. You are absolutely right, sir, this is going to severely impact their morale. When morale is impacted, it hurts their ability to do this incredibly important job.

Mr. MOULTON. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. You are absolutely right, because immigration is a debate that we need to have. It is a national security debate in and of itself. We cannot hold the Department of Homeland Security hostage to that debate. It needs to occur. We ought to have that debate. We ought to have it here on the floor of the House. But our most sacred responsibility and the present threat here is to make sure that our people are safe. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my friend and colleague, Mr. Boyle, for bringing up the issue of FEMA grants. We have been faced with unprecedented snowfall in Massachusetts, and it has put our first responders to the test. They are providing for the security of the people of Massachusetts right now, and we are all banding together to make sure that we get the FEMA grants that we need and deserve. In fact, it is a great example of a crisis that is bringing Republicans and Democrats together. The Democratic delegation of Massachusetts is working hand in hand with our Republican Governor to make sure that we get these applications in so that we can get this funding that we desperately need. Yet that is all going to grind to a halt if the Department of Homeland Security is not funded. Right here, today, we can see the effects that failing to fund the Department, shutting it down, will have. Even worse would be if we had to see the effects of another attack on our homeland. Having been to the Middle East in the past week, having seen the unprecedented challenges that our first responders face at home, we cannot afford to put our Nation's security at risk. All of the young people out there-- those who are our age in the Future Forum--want a government that works. They want a government they can believe in, and they want a government that will make them safe. Let's pass a clean funding bill. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security. And let's show the American people that our Congress can do its job.

Mr. MOULTON

Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. MOULTON. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. From Paris to Boston, New York to London, we have seen in recent weeks and years that the threat of terrorism in our world remains constant. All Americans must remain vigilant, and this Congress must do everything in its power to prevent another terrorist attack. History shows that leveraging America's economic strength is one of our Nation's best tools to combat the scourge of terrorism. We have forced rogue regimes like Iran to the negotiating table with strong economic sanctions. We have punished bad actors in Russia and North Korea by cutting off their access to global financial markets. And we ought to ensure that no one convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists, or state sponsors of terror, can take advantage of our financial system. That is what my amendment does. It simply makes clear that no one who has been convicted of providing assistance, either directly or indirectly, to a terrorist organization or a state sponsor of terrorism can make use of the exemptions in the underlying bill. The bill before us today is complex. It is a complex piece of legislation that includes measures that previously passed this House with large bipartisan support as well as other more controversial provisions. The American people did not send us to Congress to find areas where we disagree. Our constituents sent us to Congress to get things done for all Americans. We could have moved forward today with a legislative package that includes commonsense reforms that protect consumers and create the conditions for economic growth. Reasonable people may disagree on the merits of this bill, but we should all be able to agree that those who support terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism should never use our financial system to their benefit. My amendment prevents this from happening. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.