Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a fierce advocate for our communities' veterans and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlemen from Tennessee and California understand what kind of money really matters here. It is very nice to say that you are $800 million above the President's budget request. The money that matters is where we are now and what Republicans are proposing to spend going forward. Republicans are cutting--which, of course, Mr. Cline neglected to mention--military construction $1.5 billion below what we spend now. That is a cut by anyone's definition. They can play games with the language and the way they describe things, but there is no getting around that they are cutting $1.5 billion from military construction. What does that mean? That might just sound like, oh, we will build a few less buildings, it is not going to be that bad. Understand that DOD has assessed that 30 percent of our military infrastructure around the world is in fair or poor condition. Many of us have traveled around the world to inspect military bases, and we talk to our troops and pledge to our servicemembers how much they mean to us and how we have their backs. I have had the opportunity to be shown places where our hangar doors are held together with wax and spit, particularly in places like Okinawa and other areas where there is a lot of erosion and metal rusts more quickly. I live in a coastal State, and I have a coastal district, so I understand what happens there when you are on the coast from the salt air. I watched a servicemember try to pull closed a hangar door that was jury-rigged with a coat hanger because they couldn't get the door closed the way it normally should, and we did not provide them funding anywhere in the near future to ensure that we can keep billions of dollars' worth of military equipment safe. Republicans are standing here and saying things that absolutely do not pass the straight-face test when they are trying to suggest that they are doing right by our servicemembers. We have a retention problem in our military. We have people who have testified to the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee who are current servicemembers who talked to us about how they intended to spend their careers in the service, but because of the way they and their families felt treated, the decrepit housing that the military can't seem to get straight when it comes to dealing with mold and broken items and repairs that are necessary, they chose a different career path. If we continue on the path that Republicans have proposed, then what that means is that we are going to lose servicemembers, like we are already losing. That is irresponsible and unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I will have more to say at a later time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), who represents tens of thousands of military servicemembers as well as veterans and is an incredible advocate on their behalf.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and commend him for his efforts to address the severe flooding problems that have occurred in and around West Point.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I strongly oppose this amendment to cut the NATO Security Investment Program. It is hard to imagine a worse time for us to be cutting funding from our international obligations when Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine and our international obligations and cooperation are so essential in order to ensure that Ukraine can maintain its sovereignty and ensure that Russia is not allowed to be successful here and then repeat the same thing across the globe. The program, also known as NSIP, is a core part of America's contribution toward shared territorial defense with its allies. Moreover, the projects that NSIP funds often are already aligned with U.S. European Command needs. Our NSIP contributions often closely align with U.S. requirements, like projects for safety and runway upgrades at airfields that our planes use and fuel and dock improvements at ports that our ships use. The program is experiencing a period of growth as the alliance seeks to address necessary deferred infrastructure needs. This amendment would cut funding for the program below the requested level, shortchanging America's commitment to its allies, and instead move it to the spending reduction account. Military construction programs are already funded at $1.5 billion below the enacted level, as I have talked about, and this amendment is seeking to cut it further. The United States contribution to NSIP, as a percentage of the overall program, is much smaller proportionally than the United States share of the alliance's gross national income. Simply put, our allies are more than paying their fair share in the Security Investment Program. NSIP funding is necessary for NATO, and it is necessary for American national security. We should not jeopardize it with this amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this grossly irresponsible amendment. This amendment would take a huge cut, $73 million, from the NATO Security Investment Program during a time when increased funding is essential for long-deferred projects. Cutting funding for the NATO Security Investment Program is not only shortsighted from a national security perspective, but it isn't even sound long-term fiscal policy. These investments ensure a robust American and NATO presence to deter hostile nations and prevent even greater costs to American taxpayers down the road. One only has to look at the news to understand that we have hostile nations that wish to do us and our allies harm. A $73 million cut from the NATO Security Investment Program would put us in more jeopardy alongside our allies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that international cooperation and strong alliances are as essential as ever. These projects are not America paying other countries' bills. In fact, America pays a proportionally small amount to the program compared to the size of our economy in relation to the rest of NATO. Regardless of your stance on overall defense spending levels of various NATO countries, it is simply not true that the United States is paying more than its share of this direct contribution program. These projects are agreed-upon NATO requirements and oftentimes have a direct benefit to supplement existing U.S. requirements. These sites include ones directly benefiting U.S. forces through the use of upgraded ports, airfields, and communications. Our contributions to NATO represent only a small portion of overall defense spending, but the strength of the alliance is an outsized and irreplaceable part of American national security. This amendment would not even reinvest the funding into other priorities, it simply cuts funding from the bill, shortchanging the military construction portion by over $73 million. It is irresponsible. It is dangerous. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It includes 28 amendments: 2 bipartisan, 14 for Republicans, and 12 for Democrats. I am glad to see that we can at least come together around certain aspects of this bill to support our veteran servicemembers and their families and the leadership of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is here to stand up to make sure that our veterans get access to legal care.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The VA strives to fairly represent and support the communities that it serves, and all veterans deserve equitable and fair access to the healthcare and benefits that they deserve. Diversity and inclusion foster a healthy workplace environment and promote equal opportunity through smart outreach, retention, and education. Our veterans--despite the sponsor's denial of a more greatly diverse VA--increasingly are diverse themselves, and they deserve that. The bill already rejected the budget request to fund the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion at the levels needed to support the department in 2024 and instead holds the office flat at the same funding level provided in 2023, and now this amendment seeks to eliminate the already inadequate funding in the bill entirely. What is so threatening about the Office of Resolution Management, Diversity and Inclusion? This office, among the many things it does, prevents harassment and discrimination problems. I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to combat that, why we wouldn't to make sure that everybody is able to come to work or to be treated at the VA in an evenhanded and fair way. It heads off costly legal problems for the VA and saves taxpayer money in the long term which I thought was something that our friends on the other side of the aisle are interested in. I believe the real issue is that our friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the increasing diversity that is occurring in this country, and there is an effort underway as a result across all appropriations bills to excise that word and any policy related to it and to cut anything related to diversity regardless of the purpose and need of the office. Mr. Chairman, this is an inherently discriminatory, unfair, and bigoted amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, during the process of applying for disability benefits, VA determines whether or not a beneficiary can manage their own financial affairs. If not, VA will assign them a fiduciary to protect the veteran. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made that determination. In assigning a fiduciary, VA must also report the beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS system, as, under the law, they are adjudicated as mentally defective. This reporting prevents the beneficiary under Federal law from purchasing a firearm. The program has a full due process system, and veterans can file an appeal. This is an example of generating a controversy where there is none. The process of applying for disability benefits is entirely separate from the processes by which veterans receive VA healthcare. The Veterans Health Administration, which handles disability benefits, does not take away veterans' firearms. However, by implying that VA bureaucrats are going to take guns away from veterans, this amendment not only does nothing to increase access to care but its very introduction seeks to dissuade veterans from even seeking healthcare that they have earned in the first place. Moreover, this amendment deals with an authorizing issue and should not be debated on an appropriations bill. This is policy, not funding. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, let me make clear that the Department of Veterans Affairs has robust due process policies and regulations in place for incompetency determinations and remind our colleagues that one of the three ways in which someone is denied an opportunity to possess a firearm is when they have been declared mentally incompetent. There are very robust provisions in the processes at the VA to ensure that there is due process in place. On top of that, the VA has the ability to grant relief from disability in the event that clear and convincing evidence is presented that affirmatively, substantially, and specifically shows that the beneficiary is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public and that granting relief will not be contrary to the public interest. That is the kind of safety measure that we want, to make sure that when a veteran has been declared mentally incompetent, Madam Chair, that they are not able to get access to a firearm. Due process is important. Protecting the public and the individual is important, as well. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.