Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I am honored to present the fiscal year 2024 military construction, veterans affairs, and related agencies appropriations bill to the House today. This bill is special because it supports our troops and their families and the Nation's veterans.
The bill provides $17.5 billion for military construction and family housing projects. This is less than the FY23 enacted amount. However, it is nearly $800 million above the President's request.
We focus this investment in the Pacific to deter China's aggressive and coercive actions. We also provide significant funding for new barracks and child development centers.
The bill fully funds veterans programs at the level requested by the President. It keeps our promises to veterans, and we do more to help veterans in the Pacific. We also ensure taxpayer funds will be used appropriately and effectively by increasing oversight of several programs.
I thank my subcommittee ranking member. Although she disagrees with this bill, she has been a joy to work with, and our partnership has been good.
I thank all the people who have worked on this bill and all of their families and the families of the veterans.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4366.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, as the expression goes: Show me your budget, and I will show you what my values are.
It is very clear with the lollipop tree of culture war riders that this bill that funds the quality of life and the national readiness and security of the United States of America and the protection and quality of life of our military servicemembers, it is clear that because this bill cuts $1.5 billion below what we are currently funding in military construction, the Republicans have shown where their values are.
They can put all the lipstick on the pig that they have developed in this bill that they want, but at the end of the day, they are still cutting $1.5 billion from military construction. That is cutting funding for airport hangars, for training centers, for childcare centers, for infrastructure that ensures that we can keep our servicemembers safe when they are serving overseas, while they are serving in the United States, and that is something that we have not done in modern times in this bill.
Why? Because generally the military construction, veterans affairs, appropriations bill is, on a bipartisan basis, written as a commitment that we make to take care of our servicemembers while they are serving in the military on Active Duty and to take care of our veterans when they transition to retirement and spend the rest of their lives as veterans.
This committee has a special responsibility. We are the only committee in the Congress that is responsible for the entire life cycle of an individual from when they start their service on Active Duty all the way through Active Duty and through their life as a veteran. We have a special responsibility to make sure that we are taking care of them, and cutting $1.5 billion is the opposite of that.
The values that our friends on the other side of the aisle have shown is very clear. What they were more interested in doing, and the priority that was at the top of their agenda, included riders that prevent all veterans from getting equal access to healthcare no matter where they live. What they want to do in this bill--and you will see in subsequent amendments that will be offered--is they want to take away women veterans' right, their ability to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.
Furthermore, because veterans get their healthcare from the VA, it is essential that we do not discriminate against those veterans, those women veterans, no matter where they live; that they be able to get that access to healthcare whenever they need it to ensure that they can make their own reproductive healthcare decisions regardless of the State they live in.
We spent the bulk of our time in the subcommittee and the full committee debating riders that do everything from prohibiting VA from implementing diversity and equity policies so that all veterans, no matter their religion, their culture, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, that all veterans are treated equally; that we can ensure that no one feels alienated when walking through the doors of the VA facility.
The Republicans zap any program, any policy related to treating veterans equally and making everyone feel welcome when they walk in that door.
It was a top priority for them to prohibit VA facilities from flying the Pride flag over VA's facilities. If that is one of their top priorities, it is no wonder that they are cutting a billion-and-a-half dollars out of military construction, because our friends on the other side of the aisle have their policies backwards when it comes to taking care of the people who have served our country and continue to serve our country.
They have given a license to discriminate against people who are LGBTQIA+ under the guise of religious liberty. They are preventing the Federal Government from adequately responding to that and from VA to provide healthcare services to everyone equally, and they are prohibiting access to gender-affirming care, which no matter what you might like to believe on the other side of the aisle, there are people who have served our country who deserve those services.
All veterans should feel welcomed, included, and cared for. The fact that they are cutting funding for PFAS forever chemical cleanup means that we are going to be causing cancer and severe illness--which people are already getting by being exposed to these forever chemicals. We are going to ensure, because of the Republican values that are reflected in this bill, cutting funding for PFAS forever chemicals, we are going to ensure that more people who served our country and who live nearby facilities that need to be cleaned up from these chemicals get sick and eventually die. That is on them.
There is enormous need for more funding to help make sure that we can do right by our veterans. This bill does the opposite, and I stand in opposition to it. I urge all Members to join me in voting against this bill so that we can go back to the drawing board.
We will likely go back to the drawing board, I am quite sure, as this bill is on a crash course with the Senate bill which does a much better job at living up to the values that we all should adhere to, and that is taking care of people who have served our country and are serving our country nobly now.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, the NATO Security Investment Program is NATO's military construction program. The U.S. contribution supports projects needed by the alliance and also supports U.S. strategy in the region. It does not finance other countries' construction costs, and the cost share is favorable to the United States.
The increase included in the bill this year is needed to reinvest in infrastructure in the region to deter Russia's aggression. Literally, this program is a concrete investment in deterrence.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, my arguments are the same.
The NATO Security Investment Program is NATO's military construction program. The $73 million increase this year is needed to reinvest in infrastructure in the region to deter Russian aggression.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 614, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, these are noncontroversial amendments and are supported by both sides.
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.
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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Mast
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I understand the intent and that some States permit the use of marijuana. However, the VA doctors are required to comply with Federal law. This amendment does not address that. I don't want to put them in legal jeopardy. I believe this should be handled by the authorizing committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I think it is important to make clear that this debate is not about whether veterans in a State where it is legal can get access to marijuana. It is not even about whether doctors at the VA can communicate about those options with their patients because they can. VA already does that. We allowed that several years ago.
What it does do and what this debate is about is to ensure that because marijuana is still an illegal substance under Federal law, if we allow this amendment to pass, it would potentially put VA employees, healthcare providers and other VA employees at risk of DEA enforcement actions. That is not something that we can change with this amendment, no matter how much you might want to have this amendment move forward.
While some States might have legalized marijuana for medical purposes and allow physicians to prescribe it to patients, VA providers are still subject to Federal enforcement actions through the Drug Enforcement Administration. The VA has policies in place prohibiting physicians from completing forms, not from communicating with their patients, and they can't register veterans in a State medical marijuana program themselves. However, veterans certainly can register themselves to do that.
There is a concern that if legislation forced the VA to change or stop enforcing its policies, as this amendment is proposing, in the absence of systemic changes to Federal drug policy outside the VA that providers could be at risk of penalties or other legal action.
The proper place for this discussion, Madam Chair, is in the authorizing committee, which my colleague, the sponsor of the amendment serves on. Have a discussion and a debate over policy to change the Federal enforcement action risk that we would be placing VA employees in if this amendment moved forward. Move it to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and prohibit DEA enforcement action.
This debate is happening in the wrong bill on the wrong topic. I oppose the amendment for that reason, while separately not opposing the idea that there are legal ways that veterans are able to get access to cannabis and marijuana. However, we do have to make sure we can continue to allow VA employees to be protected from prosecution as a result of the potential impact that this amendment would have.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Roy
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Zinke) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4366) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source