Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, pain management education for the prescription of opioids in the VA could help with opioid abuse; that is clear. The VA already has guidelines regarding the management of opioid therapy for chronic pain and provides clear and comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations incorporating current information and practices for practitioners throughout the DOD and the VA healthcare systems. Mr. Chairman, these guidelines are provided to minimize harm and increase patient safety in patients who require opioid therapy, but these guidelines only work if the prescriber is adequately trained. And that is why the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment would be so helpful, because we all know that the key to making sure that we can reach people and maximize the effectiveness of the program is to ensure that the appropriate and significant training is done so that we can achieve those goals. So I support this amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, the gentleman deserves credit for bringing this to the House's attention. The outrage at this medical center speaks for itself, and I look forward to making sure that the IG has the resources that are needed to be able to get to the bottom to help fix this problem. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, you just can't make this stuff up. The committee members have been to the D.C. VA Medical Center, and they put on a nice show when I first became ranking member. They leave a good impression. But the documented issues at the D.C. VA Medical Center are well known, and I want to just walk our colleagues through a few of them because this is how egregious it is. The gentleman's suggestion through this amendment to make sure that the IG takes a very close look at what is going on at this medical center is critical. The D.C. VA Medical Center was found to have paid exorbitant amounts for supplies and equipment, including $300 per speculum, which could have been purchased for $122 each, and $900 each for a special needle that was available for $250. In one case, the medical center rented in- home hospital beds for three patients for 3 years at a total cost of $877,000. The medical center could have bought the three beds for $21,000. A review of 124 veteran patient records found problems with supplies or instruments in 74 of the cases between 2014 and 2017. One surgery was canceled after the patient was already under anesthesia because a retractor was unavailable because it had not been sterilized since its previous use a week earlier. A surgeon had to improvise when a tool used to prepare a skin graft was broken and the graft failed. A surgical staff member had to run to a private sector hospital across the street to borrow mesh to repair a hernia midprocedure. Investigators received more than 1,300 boxes of unsecured records from two warehouses, the hospital basement, and a large trash dumpster in April 2017. Of those records, 81 percent contained confidential patient information, including medical scans and records dating back to the 1970s. This facility is failing the veterans in the Metro D.C. area who deserve better. This is an important amendment, and making sure that the VA takes care of its patients and is not negligent or derelict in its duties at every single place that those veterans are serviced is critical. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, in 2017, the VTP program transported a total of 557,331 veterans, of which 103,704 were disabled veterans. The VTP office is the authoritative source for all veteran-related travel initiatives. Its core mission is to assist in the improvements of access to care and assist veterans in overcoming transportation barriers to accessing VHA services. VTS has established a network of transportation options for veterans through joint efforts with VA's Office of Rural Health and veterans service organizations. This is a valuable program that has clearly been recognized and highlighted by the gentleman from California, that helps veterans who are visually impaired, elderly, or immobilized due to disease or disability, and particularly those living in remote and rural areas, to get to their medical appointments. At a time with the VA where we are struggling to make sure both in terms of time that veterans have to wait to get an appointment and the difficulty in getting through a long distance to get that service, this is an important amendment. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from California's contribution and I strongly support it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the gentleman from Michigan's plight. PFAS chemicals have been found in groundwater and drinking water in Michigan due to their use in firefighting foam at former Wurtsmith Air Force Base. In fact, many closed installations across the country have a PFAS problem. For many decades, the Department of Defense used a class of chemicals called PFAS and PFOA in firefighting foam. However, we now know that PFAS is a toxic chemical that has negative health effects on the environment. I would like to work with the gentleman from Michigan on this issue to ensure that cleanup costs in his district are properly addressed in a timely manner, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also do not oppose the amendment and find the gentlewoman's concept interesting. It is pretty clear that getting another BRAC round is going to be difficult. In response, many services are demolishing facilities that they no longer need using operation and maintenance funding. As we know, the BRAC account is primarily for environmental cleanup costs associated with closing bases. I would be interested to see if there are any environmental cleanup costs associated with the demolishing of buildings. For that reason, I will not oppose the amendment, and I look forward to seeing the results of the gentlewoman's idea.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, this registry is a tool that can be used to identify health concerns, guide discussions with a healthcare provider, and document deployment-related exposures. We need to ensure that the VA is doing all it can to make veterans aware of this registry. It could literally, as the gentleman from California pointed out, be the difference between life and death. Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the gentlewoman is correct, roughly 20 veterans take their own lives every day in the United States, and it is a very serious problem that we need to address. As the chairman mentioned, the bill provides $8.6 million for mental health programs, and that is actually $6 million above the budget request. We are very proud of the work that the committee has done. In addition, the $196 million for suicide prevention outreach fully funds the veterans' crisis line, additionally, at $90 million. The bill repeats language first included in the FY17 act requiring the veterans crisis line to provide to individuals who contact them immediate hotline assistance from a trained professional and to adhere to all requirements of the American Association of Suicidology. The potential for suicide and making sure that we take care of our veterans who are facing crisis is absolutely critical. I do not oppose the amendment, but I do think it is important to stress that the committee did work to significantly prioritize this issue, and we appreciate the gentlewoman's attention to it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Providing veterans, Mr. Chairman, with prompt access to care is one goal that all Members of this body share. Call routing at the VA is a very important issue. We need to ensure that there is a system that meets the expectations of veterans and their loved ones. There are numerous VA call center numbers available to veterans who have questions about healthcare benefits and other issues, and we must ensure that calls being made to the VA are prioritized, tracked, and routed to the correct place so that issues are promptly and thoroughly addressed. We do also have, Mr. Chairman, an issue with there being a lot of different phone numbers at the VA, and that in and of itself is also confusing. So I, too, look forward to working with both gentlemen from California. I appreciate their efforts on this issue.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California said, some veterans have reported respiratory issues and other health conditions that they believe are related to their exposure to burn pits. There are studies that provide information about the health effects related to exposure, but not enough to determine the long-term impacts. In response, the VA is researching, responsibly, the issue and has created the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry for veterans and servicemembers. However, many veterans, unfortunately, do not know about the burn pit registry. The gentleman from California's amendment would help bring attention to the registry to get more veterans registered so that, should an issue arise, they can be contacted quickly and receive the care that they have earned. There is no cost to the veteran to participate, and the veteran does not even need to be enrolled in the VA's healthcare system. The burn pit registry is a tool to help participants become more aware of their health and to identify health conditions possibly related to exposure to burn pits and other airborne hazards. But it only works if veterans know to sign up, and the gentleman's amendment will accomplish that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Adaptive sports promotes the rehabilitation of disabled military service veterans. This is a vital program that allows veterans with disabilities to participate in physical activity, including those with mental health issues, within their home communities, as well as more advanced paralympic and adaptive sports programs at the regional and national levels. Mr. Chairman, the committee is a strong supporter of this program. In fact, the bill provides $17.8 million for the National Veterans Sports Program. I appreciate the gentleman addressing this issue today, and I support this amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3 today, particularly because it is incredibly deceptive. The Trump-GOP rescissions measure manages to have Republicans bundle their most damaging and misguided budget priorities into one badly flawed bill. For starters, the deception includes the ludicrous notion that all the money that is being repealed and pulled back wouldn't be used otherwise. This bill eliminates billions of dollars in funding for children's health insurance, which will prevent Congress from making smart, compassionate reinvestments in biomedical research and other child and maternal community health programs, which we could do if this bill were not here on the floor being forced down our throats. What is worse is this bill cuts job creation funds while millions of families in rural and distressed communities struggle to make ends meet. But this reckless rescission stunt doesn't stop there. It includes additional cuts to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and cuts badly needed funds for rural water programs. Just to prove that no sector is spared, it also cuts transportation improvements in rural Appalachia and national and community service programs, as well as funding for energy efficiency and advanced technology loan programs that we know are surefire job creators. Neglecting these health, energy, and job needs is a policy failure on all fronts. This rescissions bill ignores families struggling to put food on the table tonight. It neglects to make smart reinvestments that would benefit workers and taxpayers in the coming months and years ahead. And it shamelessly pretends to put this Nation's fiscal house in order, while still leaving future generations saddled with crushing debt. It is rich that Republicans are suggesting that they are protectors of our deficit when they pushed through into law a tax scam bill that added more than $1.5 trillion to our annual deficits and that gives massive handouts to corporations and the wealthy. Budgets are a financial expression of our values, and this Trump rescissions bill just confirms that Republicans care more about the wealthiest among us while the rest of America must fend for itself.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and former Chairman Dent for their hard work on the bill. Mr. Chair, I recognize Chairman Carter for taking up the reins on this bill. It is not an easy, carefree situation to come in and take over after a bill has been completely written and then have to manage it. But I am confident, given the track record that I have seen Chairman Carter have, that it is going to be an absolute pleasure to work with him, as it has been all throughout my tenure on the Appropriations Committee. As you all know, the MILCON-VA bill has a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship. Chairman Dent set a cooperative tone and was inclusive throughout the process before his retirement. The MILCON portion of the bill is up by $241 million over last year's enacted level. In my opinion, the fiscal year 2019 request adequately provides funding for both the Active and Reserve components. One item that I want to point out in the MILCON portion of the bill is new funding for enhancing security and safety. The bill includes $150 million for enhancing much-needed force protection and safety concerns at military installations. Too often, we had situations where these projects were deferred for big-ticket items and then never made it into the request. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, title 2 is $3.9 billion over, for a 5 percent increase above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased the bill rejects the administration's proposal to combine the Medical Services and Community Care accounts into one enormous account, which was a bipartisan agreement. Maintaining the old structure of two accounts offers us the most transparency for the committee to both monitor and control spending in these two areas. Mr. Chairman, while the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs division makes many important investments, it does fall far short in averting the multibillion-dollar funding shortfall at the VA in both the Choice and Community Care programs. The majority has acknowledged this fact because included in the rule was a self-executing amendment that added $1.1 billion to the Community Care account to address a discretionary shortfall caused by the VA MISSION Act, which the Democrats had repeatedly since the introduction and passage of the MISSION Act warned the majority about. Even with this additional $1.1 billion, the bill fails to address the $1.6 billion shortfall in traditional Community Care due to increased requirements. And it does nothing to address the long-term stability of the Veterans Community Care program, which CBO now estimates will need an additional $1 billion for fiscal year 2019 and at least $47 billion from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2023. This future shortfall--make no mistake, you can take this to the bank, mark my words--if we don't deal with this, will ultimately force the VA to begin cannibalizing other critical VA priorities. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lowey submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have addressed this issue, as did Mr. Walz in the VA authorizing process, that would have preserved the Bipartisan Budget Act deal and prevented cuts to VA programs. It also would have held nondefense discretionary caps for VA negotiated under the Bipartisan Budget Act harmless when funding for the Veterans Choice Program is transferred from mandatory to discretionary accounts. Another concern I have is that, despite calls to return to regular order, as many of my colleagues have discussed here today, we are instead taking up, completely unnecessarily--because we have plenty of time to do this--three bills at once. This year especially, the process should have been better. The bipartisan budget agreement enacted in February provided us relief from unworkable discretionary spending caps by giving this committee a bipartisan top-line number for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. Yet here we are, for the second straight year, doing another minibus. This is extremely disappointing, and it is nowhere close to regular order. Mr. Chairman, if we want to return to regular order, we have to know the full 302(b) picture at the beginning of this process, not five bills in to when we have marked up over a third of the bills that we consider every year. We have to return to considering bills one at a time and under an open process that allows each Member of this body to have reasonable input. Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to govern in this fashion. We must stop listening to the most extreme voices, because it is clear that passing any appropriations bill at the end of the day that will be signed into law is going to require a bipartisan majority of both houses, which this minibus will not get, in my estimation. As a result of this irresponsible posture, I am incredibly disappointed that I will be voting against the minibus and look forward to working towards an appropriations product that both parties have actually worked on together and can support.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize a man who lived by faith and embodied a life of stewardship: Reverend Joe C. Johnson. The Johnson family, the family of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, and the broader South Florida community mourn the loss of a moral and spiritual giant. Reverend Joe C. Johnson was one of our boldest, strongest, and most unapologetic servant-leaders. As the senior pastor of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church for the past 41 years, Reverend Johnson has been the cornerstone of a rich and vibrant faith community. All those who knew him had the opportunity to soak in his wisdom. I am both humbled and proud to have not only known him, but to have been able to fellowship with him and his congregation. He was a role model, a keen listener, an advisor, and a dear friend. I will always remember him as a man of great empathy and foresight; A man who believed that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions and cared deeply for his congregants; and A man who worked tirelessly to better the lives of all those in our community. My thoughts are with his wife Emma Inez, his children, grandchildren, and their entire extended family at Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church. In the days, weeks, and months ahead, we will celebrate his life and honor his legacy. While this loss will be felt deeply by everyone, we are forever privileged to have shared this time with him on Earth. May he rest in eternal peace.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this balanced budget amendment. Just a few months ago, Republicans plunged this Nation nearly $2 trillion deeper into debt with a tax scam bill that gave massive handouts to corporations and the ultra wealthy. Another trip down memory lane reminds us that Republicans care so much about balancing our budget, that one of the first things that they did upon taking the majority back in 2010 was repealing paygo rules that required Congress to pay for our spending. What better way to cover up yesterday's fiscal malfeasance than to hide behind a cynical and hypocritical promise to be more fiscally responsible tomorrow? There are really only two possibilities here: either my Republican colleagues can't do simple math or something more sinister is going on. One thing is clear: Republicans have proven time and again that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. When Republicans preach the virtues of fiscal responsibility, what they really mean is that they want to take away the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of Americans have earned. That is not fiscal responsibility; that is moral cruelty. By creating a massive hole in the deficit with the Republican tax scam, this middle class con was the first step of a scheme to undermine Social Security and Medicare. This disgraceful amendment being considered today is the second step. We have seen this movie before. Republicans followed the budget- busting Bush tax cuts for the wealthy with an attempt to privatize Social Security and they followed the budget-busting Bush recession with an attempt to voucherize Medicare. The best way to clean up the fiscal mess made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is to repeal the Republican tax scam. We do not need to amend the Constitution, and we must not force their fiscal mess to be cleaned up at the cost of our seniors' health and dignity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and to keep fighting against the Republicans' perpetual crusade to break the promises we have made to our seniors.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I live in Broward County, Florida, where the Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass shooting tragedy took place nearly 2 weeks ago. I am here to talk about our teachers and other public sector employees, but I want to take a moment to make sure that people within the sound of my voice understand what is at stake here. To hear the messages of these valiant students, in the memories of their friends whose lives were lost, their teachers whose lives were lost, and also on their own behalf as survivors. Their message is clear that we need to make sure that we are preventing weapons of war from being in the hands of civilians by banning assault-style rifles; by banning high- capacity magazines; and by closing gun show loopholes, and every other loophole, that exist today on background checks so that we can make sure that we take concrete steps to prevent mass shootings from happening in this country, anywhere. If anything else, their message is a diversion tactic, whether it is more investment in mental health or arming teachers. In particular, the idea that we should put more guns into a school environment is ludicrous to them. Their teachers already did everything they could to protect these children, and some of them lost their lives. That is unacceptable and something that we need to come together to prevent. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Mast, for taking a stand that was extremely difficult on banning assault weapons. I know that is not politically popular for me to do, but he deserves that credit, so I thank him. The Janus v. AFSCME case is a case related to public sector unions. Simply put, teachers and other employees would be dealt a serious blow in terms of their ability to organize, organize on things like the conditions in a school and how we can keep them safe, all the way to wages and benefits. Today, despite being more productive than ever, we have Americans who work longer hours for less money and fewer benefits. While working people continue to struggle, we have corporate CEOs, whether they are the CEOs of gun manufacturers or any other corporation, who continue to use their wealth to influence politicians and rig the economic rules to benefit the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of everyone else. A major part of this effort is a decades-long attack on unions. Unions increase the bargaining power of workers by allowing them to negotiate collectively, together, rather than individually with employers. Imagine how a single or handful of employees would do if they were trying to negotiate with a major corporation for better benefits and wages on their own. When workers bargain collectively, employers have no choice but to work with them to pay them higher wages and offer more generous benefits and better working conditions, like school safety. Big corporations and their overpaid CEOs don't like paying higher wages and offering generous benefits; so, as a result, they don't like unions. The latest battle in the corporate war on unions happened yesterday at the Supreme Court where the Justices heard the Janus v. AFSCME case. This goes after public sector unions to continue the assault on all working people. It is a blatantly political and well-funded plot to use the highest court in the land to further turn the economic rules against the middle class. When teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and other public service workers are free to build strong unions, they win benefits like better working conditions, wages, healthcare, and retirement security and safety that are given not just to union members, but to everyone in the workplace covered by the contract. I saw this firsthand, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Graduate Assistants United union when I was in graduate school and I attended the University of Florida. Graduate assistants are the lowest rung on the ladder at colleges and universities, but are a linchpin to the success of educating college students. Having a union to fight for our wages was a key to being treated fairly by our university. Public sector unions have also played a vital role in providing economic opportunity for women and people of color. Given that all workers covered by a contract gain the benefits of union negotiations, it has been standard practice that all workers governed by the contract contribute their fair share to the cost of organizing, through union dues paid by union members and fair share fees by workers who choose not to join the union. Fair share fees don't pay for any political activities, just the collective bargaining activities that directly benefit everyone. We need to make sure that we continue to stand up for workers and for the middle class. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will not side with the plaintiffs in this case.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the tremendous and meaningful work of Rosalyn Crawford Frazier, Chief Executive Officer of Broward Community and Family Health Centers. Ms. Frazier has played a pivotal role in the lives of South Florida families by providing quality, affordable health care to the underserved, underinsured and uninsured. Her commitment to the health and wellness of Florida's families is extensive, impressive and inspiring, and she works tirelessly to strengthen families across Broward County. Community health centers have become an essential provider for comprehensive, high-quality preventive health care for all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. They have become the core primary care destination for millions in our country--especially for minorities and our most vulnerable populations. Ms. Frazier oversees the successful operations of four clinical practice sites and one dental site located in Broward County, Florida. Broward Community and Family Health Centers provides comprehensive medical, behavioral and dental health services across all lifecycles, helping to increase access to care and reducing health disparities in Broward County. The center's mission is ``to provide accessible, comprehensive, high quality primary care services to all persons with dignity and respect.'' In addition to managing the day-to-day operations of several individual centers, Ms. Frazier is also at the forefront of health policy advocacy, from the grassroots to the highest levels of government. She has played an integral role in policy development, having testified before legislative committees, and serving on various policy planning councils. For her commitment, she has received several outstanding service and leadership awards from various federal, state, local, community and national agencies and organizations. Ms. Frazier received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration from DePaul University, a certification in Financial Management and Executive Development from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and a certification in Health Care Executive Management from the University of California, Los Angeles. She is also an adjunct professor at Nova Southeastern University for its Master of Public Health Program. Rosalyn Frazier is a selfless, compassionate, and thoughtful citizen whom I am proud to call my friend. I applaud her work to ensure that families in Broward have access to quality affordable health care and thank everyone at Broward Community and Family Health Centers for improving the lives of those in Florida's 23rd Congressional District.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this continuing resolution which, yet again, is a complete and total abdication of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. For the fifth time so far this fiscal year, Republicans are asking us to fund the government for just another flip of the calendar. The last time Republicans dragged us down this path of budgetary incompetence, we had the first ever complete government shutdown when one party held the House, Senate, and the White House. Yet here we are again, left with this ludicrous approach of funding the U.S. Government month to month while ignoring so many of the pressing issues Americans want us to address. Today we have heard Republicans pay endless lip service to their devotion to military spending--and that funding is certainly vital--but what Republicans have not mentioned is that this latest stopgap gimmick is going to rob from crucial nondefense budgets that also keep Americans safe. That means veterans, homeland security, counterterrorism, and State Department programs will be neglected and ignored. That is why Democrats are asking for a simple compromise to raise the spending caps that are unreasonable and uncompromising. That is because we all want a strong national defense, but we also need equal increases in our domestic budget so that hardworking families can feel safe and financially secure. We also want Republicans to join us in confronting the dire shortfall at the VA so no veteran is denied care upon returning home. We want Republicans to work with us to ensure urgently needed recovery funds go to Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and all areas impacted by wildfires. We want Republicans to truly help us fight this opioid scourge, protect America's pensions, and do what the vast majority of Americans want us to do: pass a clean Dream Act. Don't tell me we don't have the funds to support those needs. This Congress just gave a huge handout to billionaires and giant corporations that exploded the deficit by $1.5 trillion. But this cynically crafted continuing resolution fails to address those real needs, the needs of the people who actually sent us here to stand up for them. We must end this cycle of budgetary neglect. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership--particularly, his responsible leadership--as the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the political gambit that the Republican leadership is pulling today. Virtually identical versions of the Defense Appropriations bill we are considering have already passed the House twice. The Republican majority is so bankrupt of ideas that they are now going around in circles playing political games. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I strongly support moving appropriations bills through the committee and to the floor through regular order. I applaud all of my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in good faith on all 12 appropriations bills. But the appropriations process has been hijacked by Republican leadership and the rightwing ideologues who now run the House. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, all appropriations bills will remain stuck in the swamp that is this Republican Congress. The reason for this holdup is that Republican so-called leaders have refused to work across the aisle toward an agreement on a budget that would prevent the gutting of investments in vital national priorities: from education to infrastructure, from healthcare to housing, from diplomacy to defense. We need to provide our military with the resources they need. There is no question about that. Instead, the Republican majority is using the brave servicemen and -women who defend our Nation as pawns in a partisan crusade that would undermine the nation our troops are defending. The stated Republican rationale for their intransigence is that they are concerned about the deficit, yet these are the same Republicans who voted to explode the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion in order to give a huge tax cut to big corporations and the top 1 percent. As each day passes, it becomes more and more clear that the priorities of the Republican majority are backward and immoral. Instead of expanding access to affordable healthcare, Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave millions uninsured. Instead of investing in the middle class, Republicans gave a huge tax giveaway to those who have turned their backs on the middle class. Instead of building on bipartisan efforts to advance reasonable reforms to our immigration system, Republicans are trying to tear apart families and close the door on aspiring Americans. Instead of responsibly funding national priorities, Republicans are playing political games to distract from their failure to govern. Instead of investing in all of our people, Republicans are pitting us against each other to deflect the blame from where it belongs--with the party who controls both Houses of Congress and the White House. This is no way to keep the state of our union safe. This is no way to keep the state of our union strong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this political charade. Let's work together to invest in all of our national priorities and make the state of our union more perfect.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pledge my whole- hearted support for the right of workers to organize and to decry the efforts of powerful corporate interests to outlaw public sector union fair share fees in the Janus v. AFSCME case currently before the Supreme Court. Today, despite being more productive than ever, American workers are working longer hours for less money and fewer benefits. It is no accident that working people are struggling. Corporate CEOs continue to use their wealth to influence politicians to rig the economic rules to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Now, those same corporate CEOs and special interests are behind a Supreme Court case called Janus v. AFSCME--a case that threatens to make things even worse for working people. This case aims to take away the opportunity for working people to join together in strong unions to speak up for themselves, their families, and their communities. When teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and other public service workers are free to build strong unions, they win benefits like better working conditions, better wages, health care, clean and safe environments, and retirement security that benefit not just union members, but all workers. Given that all workers benefit, it has been standard practice that all workers contribute their fair share of the cost of organizing--a practice upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court in 1977. But the CEOs and corporate special interests behind the Janus case have abandoned the conservative principle of respect for precedent. They are instead driven by a misguided belief that working people should be denied the same ability as they have to effectively negotiate a fair return on their work so that they can provide for themselves and their families. The Janus case is a blatantly political and well-funded plot to use the highest court in the land to further rig the economic rules against everyday working people. But what these corporate bigwigs fail to recognize is that unions are now more important than ever. Unions work because we all pay our fair share and we all benefit from what we negotiate together. The forces behind this case know that by joining together in strong unions, working people are able to win the power and voice they need to level the economic and political playing field. That is why I will continue to stand with American workers and their unions to ensure that they are protected, and that they are able to pursue their own version of the American dream.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here today on the one-year anniversary of President Trump's inauguration is a complete failure by the majority in leadership and governance. For the first time ever, we have a shutdown where one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, and Federal employees will risk being sent home and losing pay. Not a surprise, given the twisted, upside-down priorities that dominate the Republican agenda. Instead of expanding health coverage, Trump and Republicans have been focused on taking it away. Instead of providing responsible tax relief focused on America's middle class, Republicans passed a huge tax scam that produced handouts to corporations and the wealthy and explodes the deficit. Now, rather than passing a responsible long-term spending plan, we have another shortsighted budget Band-Aid and the historic Trump budget shutdown. Our colleagues have clearly been reading from their alternative facts dictionary today, because it does not pass the straight-face test in any corner of this country that Republicans actually care anything about people's healthcare. Please, give me a break. Let's end the Trump shutdown by working together and focusing on bipartisan progress. Americans deserve at least that much from this body.