Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I, like many Members, have concerns regarding another round of BRAC. I realize that this is a complicated issue for all Members of Congress, especially those with military facilities in their congressional districts. I have had this conversation with my chairman, Mr. Dent, several times. And while we both share the concerns of those Members with military bases in their district and other military facilities, the gentleman is right. We are going to need to address that we have facilities all across the country that really need to be evaluated because they are, essentially, maintaining infrastructure that is no longer needed. For example, the estimate of excess capacity for the Army is 22 percent. The Air Force's estimate of excess capacity is roughly 30 percent. Both the Army and the Air Force are strong supporters of another BRAC round. While this amendment really has no effect because we don't actually have any funding in this bill for another BRAC round, it does send the message that Congress is unwilling to tackle what is arguably a tough issue. This amendment would be, essentially, an abdication of our duties as Members of this House to ensure that taxpayer resources are being used in a wise and fiscally responsible way, and that is something that we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle regularly. And given that we have a very significant increase in the defense appropriations bill, when we have resources that we are expending or, essentially, wasting by not having a BRAC round, then we are, essentially, leaving that money on the table when we could provide it for our national defense. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And I recognize that the chairman is willing to accept it, but we should underscore that there are no funds in this bill for a round of BRAC, so, essentially, the acceptance of this amendment adopts the same posture that this bill already holds. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the VA conducts animal research at 74 of its facilities, and only 3 of these--Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Richmond-- are still conducting experiments on dogs that involve inflicting significant pain and distress. Just yesterday, another whistleblower went public with graphic photos of mutilated dogs and other troubling information about dog testing at that facility. In addition, a recent VA Office of Research Oversight investigation found that the VA failed to keep adequate records about sick and suffering dogs and has consistently underreported the number of dogs used in experiments to Federal authorities. I want to be clear that this amendment, unfortunately, does not stop all animal research at the VA, and it doesn't even stop all dog research at the VA--again, unfortunately. Far from it, in fact. This amendment rightly and simply prohibits taxpayers' dollars from being spent on research that causes dogs significant pain and distress. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of Bailey, Demmy, Coqui, Minnie, and Maddie Schultz.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who has been a passionate advocate to improve services to his rural communities.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment and support the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments from Democratic Members. The amendments included range from therapy grants to combating opioid abuse. These amendments will deliver better care to our veterans. The minority has no objection to this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept, and a fair one at that. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is to protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy that is very simple and very straightforward: paying decent wages on government contracts. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. It requires that every contract for construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of $2,000 contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics. Mr. Chairman, the House has taken numerous and repeated votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has voted to maintain Davis-Bacon requirements. In fact, most recently, during consideration of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, in a bipartisan fashion, the House firmly rejected a similar amendment 242-183. Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this in this bill, and it is my hope that we stop attacking the working class and defeat the amendment before us today and move on to more important matters as we surely have in front of us. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, President Trump, the ``Commander in Tweet,'' tweeted this morning announcing a ban on transgender military service, which was a completely baseless and hateful assault on transgender Americans. Make no mistake: this was not just a midnight tweet. This was a statement of this administration's discriminatory policies and a step backwards for our Nation. While the President tweeted that his decision came after consulting, supposedly, with our Nation's top generals, that was apparently news to them, as it was met with utter surprise and silence from Pentagon leaders. Additionally, the President may want to speak to his VA Secretary, as the VA has unequivocally stated VA's policy has not changed. The VA provides care, benefits, and other VA services to all veterans, including transgender veterans. The President's policy reversal comes after our military has undertaken a measured and thoughtful process to make our military open to LGBT Americans to serve their Nation with pride and patriotism. This thoughtful process included the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which had the support of civilian and military defense leaders and an overwhelming number of Americans. Unlike the President's tweets, the decision to make our military more open was not made rashly or with the intention to discriminate. With over 6,000 transgender Americans serving on Active Duty, in the National Guard, and in our Reserve forces, it would be reckless, dangerous, and cruel to remove brave servicemembers from their critical roles protecting the American people. It is reckless and dangerous to immediately leave vacant positions that are so vital to our national security. It would be cruel to perniciously discharge these servicemembers less than honorably, an act that could gravely impact whether they are eligible for VA benefits. Time and again, we see the dramatic and unintended consequences of this President's thoughtless actions. As we fight for an open military, we will also fight to provide the proper care and resources to the over 130,000 transgender veterans that fought to defend this Nation. Additionally, whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this decision was not based on a financial cost-benefit analysis. Allowing transgender people to serve in the military would raise defense health spending by less than 0.1 percent annually, including funds for gender reassignment surgeries. That is just $2.4 million to $8.4 million. In comparison, just so we are illustrative, the Pentagon spends $84.24 million annually on erectile dysfunction prescriptions. Of that, $41.6 million was specifically spent on Viagra. Moreover, research has shown that greater inclusion has little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. In fact, commanders have noted that these policies benefited all servicemembers by creating a more inclusive and diverse force. Mr. Chairman, several things are clear: This was not a decision based on fiscal responsibility. This was not a decision based on military readiness. This decision was apparently made to save the President's immoral, irresponsible border wall, because some Republican Members threatened to bring down the entire minibus appropriations bill that we are debating here today over transgender medical treatment in the military. This decision, at the end of the day, was based purely on bigotry and hate, and it is one that we will vehemently oppose. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Ratcliffe

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor Pembroke Pines City Commissioner Carl Shechter. In recognition of Mr. Shechter's tremendous work on behalf of Pembroke Pines residents, the city has dedicated its Southwest Focal Point Community Center Campus in his name. The Carl Shechter Southwest Focal Point Community Center provides services and programming that promote the wellbeing of Pembroke Pines residents. Whether it is Adult Day Care services for seniors or educational and recreational programs for families, the Center unites a broad array of individuals from across Southwest Broward County. It is fitting that the center be named for Commissioner Shechter as he has always been devoted to enriching the lives of others. He is an extraordinary public servant, and all who walk through the doors of the Carl Shechter Southwest Focal Point Community Center shall now be reminded of his compassionate leadership. I am proud to call Carl my friend and recognize him today for his selfless contribution to our community. I wish Commissioner Shechter and his family a heartfelt congratulations on this momentous occasion.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentlewoman be surprised that last night in the Appropriations Committee, we marked up the T-HUD bill--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill? And for all the talk about making it in America and investing in infrastructure and transportation and making sure that we can create jobs through those vehicles, will the gentlewoman be surprised that the Republican majority actually zeroed out TIGER grants? Those are the transportation grants that go directly to projects in communities across this country, to help move people around through people movers and investments in roads and bridges. In my district, a TIGER grant was granted last year for complete streets because we have the highest number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed in the country, unfortunately, in Broward County. So would the gentlewoman be surprised to learn the so-called big commitment to creating jobs and investing in infrastructure actually resulted in massive cuts in the very legislation where we would be investing those resources and infrastructure?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just came from the Appropriations Committee markup on the Interior legislation, and a large part of that committee's work relates to the environment. In my district, which is ground zero for sea level rise, Broward County recently ordered the drawing of new flood maps because of anticipated higher water levels. The city of Fort Lauderdale has already increased the height requirement for seawalls and raised the elevation of home sites. Miami Beach's climate plan involves building elevated roads and installing pumps to keep out saltwater. So the President's and the Republican's--our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--solution for sea level rise is basically sink or swim. Here is the President's coastal flood mitigation plan. We have got the sea level rise plan and the coastal flood mitigation plan. Take your pick. At some point, we are probably going to have to give people both because we literally have to slosh around in galoshes when you are walking down the street in south Florida because of how bad the king tides are and how bad the streets flood in a normal rain. But, God forbid, we should invest in infrastructure. And I know the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), when she was in the State senate, was a significant leader on investing in infrastructure, which is absolutely critical to making sure that we can keep people safe and that we can make sure that we can create jobs. That is something that this President and the Republicans have talked a whole lot about. We are 178 days into this President's term, and we haven't passed a single piece of legislation related to infrastructure investment. And I think he actually promised to think big, because supposedly Democrats weren't thinking big enough; and that he was going to propose a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. I am hearing crickets. I am still waiting for that plan.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wanted to, again, place these items on the table and demonstrate the grave impact that will take its toll on the American people if the cuts that have been proposed by the Trump administration and the Republican majority go through. And we will stand together fighting every step of the way to make sure that-- instead of galoshes, a life vest, and a surgical mask that we see so many citizens of other countries have to walk around their streets using because their air quality is so poor, we will stand together to continue to fight to make the kind of investments that will help improve, not detract, from people's quality of life.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I represent the State of Florida. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing up this extremely important conversation about the, at least, 23 million people who would have lost healthcare coverage if the ``Not Very Affordable Care Act'' that the Republicans envisioned would have passed. If I were the President of the United States, I might want to revise my definition of winning, because I think that we have a leader in the White House who repeatedly said that America would get so tired of winning, once he became President, that we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves. Well, if killing their horrific healthcare bill and making sure that we can maintain healthcare as a right and not return it to the privilege that it once was for only people who could afford it, then I will take that kind of winning, because we did win on behalf of the American people, but we know that this is not the last trick up their sleeve. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin mentioned the huge cuts to Medicaid in this terrible piece of legislation, and the gentleman from Texas mentioned the 64 percent of seniors in nursing homes who are there because they are on Medicaid. I represent the State of Florida, Mr. Speaker, and in the State of Florida, we have the highest percentage of senior citizens as a proportion of our population in the country. This is just one example of a very vulnerable population, and this is an example of a population that our friends on the other side of the aisle were willing to just write off and leave twisting in the wind. What would happen if this bill became law is we would go back to the days before Medicare and before Medicaid, in which you had families go bankrupt trying to take care of the ever-increasing healthcare needs of their most elderly family members, and it is just absolutely unacceptable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and we are actually going to mark up the Republicans' budget tomorrow in that committee. Really, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the ``Commander in Tweet,'' President Trump's budget that he proposed in May certainly did not put either families or taxpayers first--far from it. In fact, the budget that both he proposed and that we will mark up tomorrow put Americans and taxpayers dead last, right behind polluters, industry lobbyists, and climate change deniers. And like too many of our Republican colleagues' spending priorities, this budget, this Republican budget, is actually a brutal attack on America's families. We all know that it fails to deliver on investments in jobs, in infrastructure, and in education, but, my friends, nowhere is the damage to American families as stark as when it comes to our environment. The Trump budget, the Republican budget that we will mark up tomorrow, will irreparably damage our air, our water, and our climate. The President has already managed to undermine America's position as a global leader in clean energy frontiers by withdrawing America from the Paris climate accord, for example. And like many of his tweets, President Trump's climate science policies are a rejection of reality, and a cynical embrace of falsehood and fantasy. Ms. Jayapal represents a State that is on a coast, I represent a State that is on a coast, Ms. Moore represents a State that is on the Great Lakes. Sea levels are rising. Our water levels are rising, Mr. Speaker. Property appraisers and insurance companies in south Florida are already factoring this reality into their home value assessments. King tides are bringing fish into the streets of south Florida. President Trump's climate change solution is not the Paris climate accord, it is not making sure that we make investments in alternative energy. Let me show you what President Trump's solution to sea level rise and climate change is. His solution is to throw people a life vest, and they can sink or swim. Folks like the people in my district, who have invested most of their savings, like so many people, into their home, a life vest and being told that they can just deal with it is unacceptable. We have to come together and come up with solutions to make sure that we can fight sea level rise and climate change, to make sure we can keep our drinking water clean, to make sure we make the kinds of investments so that we can protect the air we breathe. We have cities like Flint, Michigan, that have dealt with lead in their water and children being poisoned for years. To my colleagues, this is something that is an existential threat, that if we don't make the kinds of investments that we must, then we are going to be in a world of hurt, and it is not at some distant point in the future. There was an article in the Miami Herald yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that referenced that my children's generation may not be able to live in my own district. That is absolutely unbelievable. I am actually thinking of sponsoring an appropriation. Rather than making sure that we can invest in moving away from fossil fuels, maybe we will just invest in more life vests, President Trump's solution to global warming and climate change and sea level rise, and just issue everybody one of these, and we are good to go.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. ``Mean'' was the exact word that the President used.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I, too, had a very similar experience. My mother-in-law suddenly had a stroke when she was 58 years old, and she was cut down in her prime, also suffered from diabetes, and spent 3 years really in a very debilitated condition. She had to spend down essentially all of her assets to be able to qualify for Medicaid, because the only way that she could get care in a nursing home and be able to afford to get quality care in a nursing home was through Medicaid. She did also eventually die after 3 years in a nursing home, but I can't even imagine having to try to find a way to pay for her care if it were not for Medicaid.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the Perry amendment, that would strike section 336 of the National Defense Authorization Act bill under consideration by the House. Section 336 is a commonsense and essential provision that simply acknowledges the fact that climate change is an urgent and direct threat not only to our national security, but also to our armed forces and our military installations around the world. This amendment would weaken our national security by preventing our military from planning and preparing to best meet these threats. Despite the consensus view of the world's climate scientists that human actions are accelerating climate changes through our excessive carbon emissions, there continue to be some Members of this body that hope if we don't assess the threat too closely, it will go away. As Members of this body, we have sworn to protect the public welfare from all threats, foreign and domestic. And make no mistake, our changing climate--fueled by humanity's enormous carbon emissions--is exactly such a threat. But don't take my word for it. The words of Defense Secretary James Mattis that are included in the text of this bill are instructive, and deleting them through this amendment will make them no less true. He said, ``I agree that the effects of a changing climate--such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others--impact our security situation . . . [and] it is appropriate . . . to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment . . . into [our] planning.'' And as former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gordon Sullivan has stated: ``Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.'' The bipartisan language of section 336 goes on to state that, ``a three-foot rise in sea levels will threaten the operations of more than 128 United States military sites, and it is possible that many of these at-risk bases could be submerged in the coming years.'' For my district in South Florida, we don't have to look to the future to see the threat posed by rising temperatures. Climate change is a threat today. Sea levels have already risen nine inches in the last several decades and, according to FIU's Sea Level Solutions Center, we could see up to another six inches of sea level rise in just over a dozen years. Today ``king tides'' cause flooding in low-lying communities several times a year. We cannot afford another six inches, let alone another three feet of ocean water. And our marine ecosystems and corals are also under attack from increased acidification caused by carbon dioxide absorption in ocean waters. As Members of Congress, we have a duty to the taxpayers of this country not only to protect our communities from the worst effects of climate change, but also to ensure that we spend wisely on national defense and international assistance for humanitarian and disaster response. It is therefore imperative that our military leaders be allowed to assess the vulnerabilities to our military installations and ensure we build in resiliency so that our military is ready to meet the challenges ahead. Simply put, we should give our military leaders the tools they need to protect the American public. Section 336 does exactly that and this amendment must be rejected. Whether out of concern for our national defense, our public health, our environment, the economic well-being of our communities, or for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-advised amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the dangerous and shameful Senate version of TrumpCare. According to the new Congressional Budget Office estimate, this bill will leave 22 million Americans without insurance by 2026. In my district, that amounts to over 91,000 of my constituents, and over 2 million Floridians in total. TrumpCare would allow insurers to charge seniors up to five times more than younger people. In addition, we have more than 1.3 million Americans who are in nursing homes, and 62 percent of those pay for their stay and their care with Medicaid dollars, including three in five Floridians who are in a nursing home. The majority promised Americans that they would fix TrumpCare in the Senate. Instead, 13 men made a backroom deal and they left seniors out of it. Make no mistake, while billionaires reap huge tax breaks in this bill, older middle class Americans will suffer. I urge my Republican colleagues to find their backbone--and look for their hearts while they are at it--and stand up for our seniors. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore