Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Despite the wildfires, smoke-covered skies, life-threatening heat waves, and extreme weather we now face nearly every day in the United States, this amendment would hamstring our ability to address the accelerating threat of climate change. The scientific consensus is clear, and we need to get serious about preventing further damage by transitioning to clean energy sources while also working to mitigate the costs we already bear today. The Department of Defense has repeatedly recognized that climate change is a direct threat to the U.S. military's readiness, mission effectiveness, and resilience. From rising sea levels that can flood coastal installations to more frequent extreme weather events that can damage our military infrastructure, these climate-related effects put our security at risk. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the news. Just yesterday, the news reported that the ocean temperature in south Florida was more than 100 degrees yesterday, 101.1 degrees to be specific, in Everglades National Park in Manatee Bay. Do you know what happens at temperatures like that? At temperatures like that, we start seeing massive coral bleaching. Coral bleaching, high temperatures, sea level rise are not someday things in Florida. They are right now things. In 2018, a Category 5 hurricane devastated Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, necessitating billions of dollars to repair and rebuild. We can only mitigate against those costly scenarios if we can acknowledge that the changing climate and increasing extremes we must adapt to are real. Further, climate change directly impacts the health of our most vulnerable veterans. Increases in extreme heat, extreme weather events, and disease pose a threat to those who have served, particularly those who are older or who have preexisting conditions and those who have respiratory conditions, which often older veterans do. The policies targeted in this amendment provide a path to help us future-proof our military, incorporate climate risk analysis into military planning, enhance our energy security, address the health effects of climate change, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The gentleman from Texas might want to wish away or amend away global warming and climate change and its effects, but that simply isn't possible. This amendment would result in leaving our military woefully unprepared and our Nation on a path toward climate catastrophe in decades to come. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez), who is here as an advocate on behalf of her constituents serving in the military as well as our veterans.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I think it is important to point out that the new motto still is reflective of President Lincoln's beliefs, and his promise is one that was developed after surveying veterans who receive care from the VA and their employees. Perhaps we should listen to the veterans who are served by the VA and the people who work with them every single day about the need for a more inclusive motto. The more inclusive motto says, ``To fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have served in our Nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors,'' making sure that the motto of the VA ensures that all patients who are served there, all employees who work there, all the surviving families who interact with the VA every single day understand that the motto applies to them and the more outdated motto that dates back to President Lincoln's time is no longer reflective of who is served at the VA. This is 2023. It is hard to imagine that we are actually debating a motto on the floor of the House of Representatives and have a Member of Congress suggesting that that motto should remain exclusive of women instead of ensuring, as the motto voted on as a result of the surveys of VA employees and VA patients, is more reflective of who the VA treats today. Madam Chair, I urge opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, it is astonishing to me that our friends on the other side of the aisle are fossil fuel warriors. I mean, that is what this is all about. This is about Big Oil and fossil fuel supporters and making sure that the coffers continue to be filled. It is absolutely irresponsible. It is essential that we make sure that we are preparing and aggressively pursuing and making sure that we can stave off and mitigate the effects of global warming and climate change. These are not risks that are somewhere in the distant future. They are happening right now. Madam Chair, in my own district, in neighborhoods in south Florida, during the king tides in particular, you have sunny day flooding because the sea level rise is nearly unstoppable at this point. That is costing us precious resources that we should be spending on other quality-of-life issues. Yet, the gentleman's amendment would further prevent us from being able to mitigate the effects of global warming and climate change. It is dangerous. In particular, as it relates to our military, it puts our national security at risk and the health of our servicemembers at risk. We need to make sure that we can continue to aggressively pursue protecting our national security interests, which is why, on both sides, no matter who is in charge of the Department of Defense, the Department continues to pursue policies that will ensure that we can mitigate against global warming and climate change. They understand the risk to our servicemembers and to our safety. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this executive order is a whole- of-government approach for addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to clean energy and sustainable technologies. It ensures that we set responsible targets for how we invest our Federal dollars to incentivize the private sector to expand on these technologies, and it creates unionized jobs. We cannot turn a blind eye to the extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires across this Nation. We are seeing the impacts of climate change in real time. In south Florida, like I mentioned earlier, yesterday, we had a 101.1-degree registered temperature in the ocean around south Florida. From California to Vermont and across Republican and Democratic districts, if we want to leave our planet better for our children and our grandchildren, then we must strategically invest in products that improve energy and water efficiency, reduce emissions, and generate clean energy. We need a coordinated, governmentwide approach to ensure that there is no duplication of effort or unnecessary red tape that disincentivizes public-private partnerships. This amendment prevents that. The focus on elevating fossil fuels and thwarting the advancement of clean energy will not help this Nation build a strong economy for the future. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam 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. Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.