[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 156 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4480-H4495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4365, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4367, 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4665, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, 
   AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4368, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 
   DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 723 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 723

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4365) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No amendment to H.R. 4365 shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma 
     amendments described in section 13 of this resolution.
       (b) Each amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4367) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived.
       Sec. 5. (a) No amendment to H.R. 4367 shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc 
     described in section 6 of this resolution, and pro forma 
     amendments described in section 13 of this resolution.
       (b) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 6 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 7.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4665) making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered

[[Page H4481]]

     as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived.
       Sec. 8. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 4665, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 9 of this 
     resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 13 
     of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part D of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 9 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 9.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part D 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 10.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4368) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2024, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment 
     printed in part E of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 11. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 4368 shall be in 
     order except those printed in part F of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments 
     en bloc described in section 12 of this resolution, and pro 
     forma amendments described in section 13 of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part F of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     F of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 12 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 12.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part F 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 13 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 13.  During consideration of each bill--H.R. 4365, 
     H.R. 4367, H.R. 4665, and H.R. 4368--for amendment, the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 14.  At the conclusion of consideration of each bill--
     H.R. 4365, H.R. 4367, H.R. 4665, and H.R. 4368--for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report such bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on such bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 15.  The Clerk shall not transmit to the Senate a 
     message that the House has passed H.R. 4367 until notified by 
     the Speaker that H.R. 2, as passed by the House on May 11, 
     2023, has been enacted into law.

                              {time}  1745


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 723.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of 
that same act.
  The first section of House Resolution 723 states that all points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. Therefore, I make a 
point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be 
considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, decades ago, Republicans came up with a rule that 
basically says that we cannot impose mandates on States and local 
governments that will cost them significant amounts of money. That rule 
is routinely waived, including in this rule.
  Do you know what will cost States and local governments significant 
amounts of money? A government shutdown.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that the 5-week 
partial government shutdown in 2018-2019 reduced economic output by $11 
billion in the following two quarters, including $3 billion that the 
U.S. economy never regained. Moody's Analytics estimated that the 2013 
full government shutdown reduced GDP growth by $20 billion. At the same 
time of the 2013 shutdown, consumer confidence fell, threatening the 
economic recovery following the Great Recession.
  A shutdown this fall would jeopardize the improvements of consumer 
confidence as inflation has returned to more normal levels. A 
bipartisan congressional report found that the last three government 
shutdowns led to the equivalent of 56,940 years in lost productivity 
from Federal workers being furloughed. These lost work hours deprive 
the American people of important public services, delayed furloughed 
Federal employees from receiving backpay, and cost the government at 
least $338 million in additional processing costs and late fees.
  While Federal employees are guaranteed backpay during shutdowns, a 
prolonged shutdown could mean multiple missed paychecks and strained 
household budgets for these workers.
  In 2013 and again in 2018, roughly 850,000 out of 2.1 million 
nonpostal Federal employees were furloughed. Additionally, at the 
beginning of the 2018-2019 partial shutdown, about 380,000 Federal 
employees were furloughed and another 420,000 reported to work but went 
unpaid.
  Over 80 percent of Federal workers live and work outside of the D.C. 
area, meaning that local economies across the country would be harmed 
by Federal worker furloughs as families delay purchases or are forced 
to miss regular bill payments.
  Let's consider more impacts of the Republican shutdown and how it 
will cost State and local governments. It would force servicemembers 
and law enforcement officers to work without pay. Under a Republican 
shutdown, all Active-Duty military personnel and many law enforcement 
officers would remain at work but receive no pay until appropriated 
funds are available.
  It would endanger disaster response. A Republican shutdown would 
create an increased risk that FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is depleted 
and would complicate new emergency response efforts

[[Page H4482]]

if additional catastrophic disasters occur. Funding for long-term 
recovery projects would also remain halted, worsening ongoing delays as 
FEMA awaits new appropriations.
  It would undermine research on cancer and other diseases. A 
Republican shutdown would stall critical research on diseases like 
cancer and Alzheimer's disease because the National Institutes of 
Health would be forced to delay new clinical trials. New patients, many 
of whom are desperately waiting for a chance for a new treatment 
through a clinical trial, would be turned away.
  It would eliminate Head Start slots for kids. Under a Republican 
shutdown, 10,000 children across the country would immediately lose 
access to Head Start as the Department of Health and Human Services 
wouldn't be able to award Head Start grants during a shutdown, with the 
impacts only growing worse over time.
  It would risk significant delays for travelers. Air traffic 
controllers and TSA officers would have to work without pay, 
potentially leading to significant delays and longer wait times for 
travelers at airports across the country like there were during the 
previous shutdown.
  It would undermine public health and environmental protections. Most 
EPA-led inspections at hazardous waste sites, as well as drinking water 
and chemical facilities, would stop. EPA would halt oversight and 
review of permits and plans to ensure safe water and clean air in 
communities. Additionally, efforts to address dangerous contaminants 
that are linked to severe health effects would be stopped. This would 
be a disaster.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point 
of order in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, the question before the House of 
Representatives is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 723, 
the rule that is before us, a rule that we are looking to advance this 
evening to advance four appropriations bills that, when combined with 
the appropriations bill we passed in July, would fund 73 percent of 
government.
  Meanwhile, the United States Senate has passed no appropriations 
bills, and in fact, sent a continuing resolution to the floor just now, 
just this evening, having not done its job to pass appropriations 
bills.
  The fact of the matter is the waiver we are talking about here in the 
rules is a prophylactic waiver that my colleagues used all the time 
when they were in the majority. They know full well that is what they 
are doing. This is dilatory. This is purposeful. I would do it too if I 
didn't have all my folks back for the vote. That is what I would do. 
That is the reality of what we are talking about here.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about 
unfunded mandates. Let's talk about unfunded mandates.
  Let's talk about all of the subsidies that are going out for electric 
vehicles to subsidize the elite in this country that make over $200,000 
and $250,000 a year.
  Let's talk about the subsidies, 90 percent of the corporate subsidies 
going to billion-dollar corporations.
  Let's talk about the mandates in the form of vaccine mandates, mask 
mandates, and all of the mandates during COVID that shut down the 
largest economy that this world has ever known.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about a 
shutdown. Yet, they are the masters of shutdown. They shut down and 
brought to a halt the great American economy resulting in exactly what 
you are experiencing right now: what the American people are feeling in 
terms of inflation, in terms of inability to afford homes, inability to 
afford gasoline, inability to afford power. Those are the mandates that 
the American people are concerned about. Those are the unfunded 
mandates that are killing their way of life right now at home.
  That is the simple fact.
  My colleagues are talking about the government and what it might cost 
if there is a government shutdown Saturday. Let's be very clear. If 
there is a shutdown on Saturday, it is because President Biden, Chuck 
Schumer, and my Democratic colleagues would prefer to shut down the 
government of the United States than shut down the border of the United 
States and protect the American people.
  That is the simple truth. That is how there would be a resulting 
shutdown on Saturday.
  They lament what might be the impact on government, and that is 
because they have a government, the American people have a government 
that is on autopilot. We have a government that is so big and is funded 
with mandatory spending and is on autopilot such that you cannot 
constrain it.
  The American people are asking why. The American people are asking 
what can you do about it.
  I will give you the answer: My Democratic colleagues want more of the 
same. That is why our Democratic leadership in the United States Senate 
has put forward a continuing resolution on the floor of the Senate just 
now, in the last hour, that will perpetuate the status quo, will 
continue to fund government exactly as it was funded last December at 
the obscene levels of that $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.
  They are going to send that bill over here to the House and say to 
the American people they want status quo, business as usual, and they 
are going to pile on additional supplemental funding. That is their 
response to what the American people are feeling and seeing.
  I, if I were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would also 
want to have a dilatory vote because I would not have actual solutions 
for the American people.
  What we are trying to put forward here, again, are four 
appropriations bills that fund 73 percent of the government when 
combined with MILCON-VA, which we passed in July. That is what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to go ahead and 
move to. They want to put forward a dilatory point of order because 
they don't have answers for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman said the Democrats shut 
down the economy during the pandemic. I should remind him that Donald 
John Trump was the President of the United States and the Republicans 
controlled the House.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, let me announce breaking news.
  I don't want to see the government shut down.
  Democrats don't want to see the government shut down.
  The American people don't want to see the government shut down.
  I am standing with the American people and cities and hamlets and 
villages and counties and States.
  What has failed to be enunciated, I say to my friend on the other 
side, is that we had a deal. We should have been finished with this.
  The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States 
already agreed in the spring on what the numbers would be, what we were 
going to do for the government to keep operating. It has already been 
done.
  We are here now because of the upheaval of MAGA Republicans talking 
about undermining a deal that was made on behalf of the good people of 
this Nation. We are facing an uphill battle.
  We just came out of the Budget Committee where they are fighting to 
eliminate $400 million in Medicare cuts and $2 trillion in cuts to 
mandatory health spending.
  The reason why we are on the floor now is because we believe in the 
people back home. They can't afford another unfunded mandate. Cities 
are now carrying over their fund balances with Federal dollars that 
Democrats were able to give to keep them alive. If we have these 
unfunded mandates, childcare goes out the window; Active-Duty military 
have problems with getting paid, our veterans don't get their

[[Page H4483]]

services; Social Security payments may be up in the air; the burden of 
having to pay money for unfunded mandates; the hanger-on amendments 
that are being put into these bills are just tragic.
  Law enforcement may be impacted negatively. Those who are in need of 
getting violent criminals off the street may be put in jeopardy. People 
who are working-class Americans going to community colleges are in 
jeopardy of getting their resources.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say this: No more unfunded mandates. Let's 
do the deal that we have and save the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing 
debate on these four appropriation bills before us today: H.R. 4365--
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4367--Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4665--Department of 
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
2024; and H.R. 4368--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.
  I oppose the Rule and the underlying legislation as it pertains to 
H.R. 4365, for the following reasons:
  The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the 
Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan 
and damaging policies under our noses.
  The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the 
Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who 
sit on the very committee this bill originated from.
  In order to further promote a culture war, the members who oversaw 
this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.
  First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently 
employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the 
Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive 
healthcare regardless of their station.
  Women currently make up 1 in 5 members of our military.
  Denying them their previously promised ability to check their 
reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly 
irresponsible. The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low 
retention amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this 
bill would strip away.
  Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly 
victimized by Republican agendas around the country.
  Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with 
respect and equality, which this bill does not do.
  This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for 
gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender 
dysphoria. Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is 
a serious issue and has led to 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary young 
people attempting suicide in the past year.
  Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect 
the wellbeing of ALL citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and 
ideologies.
  The language in this legislation would further embolden those who 
wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already 
facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.
  This is unacceptable.
  The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should 
not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not 
promote the diversity of our nation but rather seeks to suppress it.
  This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way 
Republicans sought to eliminate ``Critical Race Theory?'' or ``CRT''.
  Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this 
term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in 
education.
  Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the 
complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society; it 
is not an attack on white people for their history, just as it does not 
victimize Black people based on ours.
  Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of 
government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a 
complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash 
over the negative to present a false narrative.
  At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against a 
Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate 
level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected 
accurately in the history of this multicultural nation.
  Another issue with this Defense Appropriations bill is the cut of 
$714 million to adapt military equipment to be more climate friendly.
  Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and 
efforts.
  The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative 
source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.
  It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' 
fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States 
Army.
  This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as 
well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a 
net zero future.
  In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 
million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than 
most countries.
  But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to 
scale back on their emissions, certain members in Congress want to 
limit their choice.
  One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the 
Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4365 that was made in order by the 
committee.
  The Jackson Lee amendment H.R. 4365 seeks to allocate $10 million to 
fund triple negative breast cancer research.
  This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and 
women in the military, who are up to 20 to 40 percent more likely to 
develop breast cancer.
  I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden 
administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but 
there is still work to be done.
  This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day 
hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel 
affected by breast cancer.
  Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active-
duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing 
accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, 
addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing 
authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder.
  I am very proud of the work that I and Congress has done to address 
the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, 
but there are still improvements to be made.
  The men and women who are on the front lines or have already 
completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing 
issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not 
be one of them.
  While this amendment is important, the negatives of this defense 
appropriations bill vastly outweigh the positives.
  As with all the additional appropriation bills on the floor today, 
the Administration likewise strongly opposes the passage of this bill 
for a myriad of reasons--including the following:
  Border Management Funding: It is disappointing this bill does not 
include funding for a new Southwest Border Contingency Fund. This fund 
would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on 
the Southwest border and fulfill its critical and complementary 
missions of securing the border, performing efficient and effective 
screening and processing, and meeting the Nation's humanitarian 
obligations.
  Shelter and Services Program: It also shameful that this bill seeks 
to eliminate the Shelter and Services Program, a priority grant program 
for DHS that provides temporary food, shelter, and other services to 
state and local entities and non-governmental organizations that 
provide support to migrants who are released from DHS custody. This 
grant program is a key mechanism for Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to relieve overcrowding in short-term holding facilities.
  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Funding: 
This bill further fails to provide appropriations for USCIS application 
processing and grant programs. Without this funding, USCIS would be 
unable to improve its operations and the application processing backlog 
would continue to grow in FY 2024.
  Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVFP) Grants: It is 
absolutely abhorrent that this bill eliminates the TVTP grant program. 
TVTP provides funding to nonprofits and to State, local, tribal, and 
territorial governments to develop multidisciplinary targeted violence 
and terrorism prevention capabilities in local communities, to pilot 
innovative prevention approaches, and to identify prevention best 
practices that can be replicated in communities across the Nation.
  Immigration Enforcement Prohibitions and Requirements: I also stand 
with the Administration in strongly opposing section 220 of the bill, 
which would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
from using appropriated funds to carry out the Administration's 
immigration enforcement priorities, as well as the requirement in the 
bill for ICE to fill 41,500 detention beds and enroll all non-detained 
migrants in Alternatives to Detention. These requirements are 
unrealistic, pose implementation challenges, and would dilute the 
Department's focus on protecting America from security threats.

[[Page H4484]]

  Restrictions on Alternatives to Detention (ATD): This bill wrongfully 
eliminates funding for the Young Adult Case Management Program, as well 
as for Operation Horizon, and grant funds for a case management pilot 
program. These restrictions would simultaneously strain limited 
resources and remove valuable flexibilities in managing low-risk 
populations.
  Limiting Interior Transportation: Prohibiting the transport of 
noncitizens to interior locations risks overcrowding at border 
processing sites and other DHS facilities, threatening to exacerbate 
life and safety concerns of those in custody.
  Restrictions on Access to Healthcare: Section 222 of the bill is also 
particularly harmful, which would make it more difficult to access 
lawful reproductive healthcare. I stand in strong opposition to this 
section, which targets LGBTQI+ individuals who are in ICE detention.
  Prohibiting the Implementation of the Asylum Processing Rule: This 
bill further prohibits the use of funds to implement the 
Administration's Asylum Processing Rule--which serves as a key part of 
the Administration's efforts to streamline the immigration system, 
allowing USCIS Asylum Officers to hear and decide certain asylum claims 
in the first instance.
  Prohibiting the Implementation of the Legal Pathways Rule: I further 
oppose the bill's prohibition on using funds to implement the 
Administration's Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule. The Rule 
encourages migrants to use lawful, safe, and orderly processes for 
entering the United States; imposes conditions on asylum eligibility 
for those who fail to do so or fail to seek protection in a country 
through which they transit; and supports the swift return of migrants 
who do not have valid protection claims. The bill would undermine DHS's 
continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and 
administer U.S. immigration law.
  Restricting the Use of the CBP One Application: I also strongly 
oppose the bill's restrictions on using the CBP One application. A key 
part of the Administration's efforts to foster fair and orderly 
conditions at the border, the CBP One application allows border 
officials to screen migrants seeking asylum along the Southwest border, 
and issue them a document to appear in court upon their arrival.
  Border Wall: Lastly, I oppose the homeland security appropration bill 
for its rescession and reappropriation of $2.1 billion in border wall 
funding. Building a border wall is not a serious policy solution nor is 
it a responsible use of Federal funds.
  While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment 
No. 16/No. 43 in order, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this 
particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible 
appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases 
funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to 
highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital 
Mutilation.
  I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long 
while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York 
to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this 
ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.
  Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures 
that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, 
or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
  This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to 
other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as 
child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the 
human rights of women and girls.
  Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women 
alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger 
representing 44 million of those who have been cut.
  For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are 
mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to 
be at risk of FGM/C, annually.
  The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can 
include bleeding, infection, obstetic fistula, complications during 
childbirth and death.
  Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C 
include the high concentration in specific regions associated with 
several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.
  According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the 
world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and 
Asia.
  Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. 
bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of 
combatting FGM/C abroad.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 prioritizes funding for foreign 
assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an 
internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and 
women comes to an end.
  Lastly, as it pertains to the bill to determine appropriations for 
the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and 
related agencies for the 2024 fiscal year, I strongly oppose this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  While I am again grateful the Rules committee made in order my 
Jackson Lee Amendment, listed as No. 18 in the Harris (MD)--En Bloc, 
this bill seeks to return America's agriculture back to 2006 funding 
levels--with an allocation of $17.1 billion, nearly $8 billion below 
last year's enacted bill.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funding that provides grant 
research financial support for ``1890s Land Grant Universities,'' which 
are 28 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This amendment 
also proposes decreasing funding for the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
  The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities' (APLU) Council 
of 1890s includes all Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs) that are land-grant universities.
  Under the Morrill Act of 1890, at least 19 universities have been 
designated with land-grant status. The Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities--Excellence in Research HBCU-EiR program was established 
in response to direction provided in the Senate Commerce and Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Report 
(Senate Report 115-139). That initiative was built on prior and 
continuing efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to 
strengthen research capacity at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs).
  The Jackson Lee Amendment would provide sufficient funding and 
guidance to enable the NSF to be successful with the HBCU Excellence in 
Research program.
  This amendment would further provide opportunities for both public 
and private HBCUs, particularly for those who have not been successful 
in competing with larger NSF Research & Related Activities.
  Increasing Funding for the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) agency that provides grant research would help to stimulate 
sustainable improvement in research and development capacities of 
HBCUs.
  By increasing funding for relevant agencies that provide appropriate 
financial support for these historically underserved institutions, we 
can ensure that federal funds are redirected toward more critical 
funding needs of the American people.
  However, the proposed underlying bill as is would mean a pull back on 
investment, slashing the number of loans awarded to financially 
distressed farmers.
  H.R. 4368 rescinds $500 million from the Renewable Energy for America 
Program (REAP), which helps farmers facing high input costs.
  Many provisions in this bill seek to limit access to viable programs 
and put many out of reach of energy efficient projects that help 
American farmers to lower their energy bills and live decent lives.
  For everyday rural Americans, the implementation of this bill would 
have a substantially negative impact on their daily livelihood. These 
communities rely on crucial infrastructure, from water and wastewater 
systems to high-speed internet.
  However, these infrastructure projects require huge upfront costs 
that smaller tax bases of rural communities cannot bear alone.
  H.R. 4368 would cut federal grants to community facilities by a 
whopping 90 percent, obstructing the progress in bringing affordable 
health care to underserved and rural communities, and it will cut rural 
water and waste disposal loans by 30 percent and rural waste disposal 
grants by 36 percent.
  All these senseless cuts to funding amount to 325 crucial projects 
for rural water and wastewater systems that simply will not have the 
funding to be implemented.
  This bill also seeks to eliminate funding for the Distressed 
Communities program, which means hundreds of small local governments 
will not be able to renovate their systems to meet EPA standards for 
getting arsenic and lead out of their drinking water systems.
  The cumulative and direct impact of these policies on the American 
people will be devastating. Thousands of American families could lose 
access to reliable sources of water, not knowing if they could turn on 
the spigot and get clean, safe water to drink or complete a myriad of 
other essential daily tasks.
  H.R. 4368 further limits funding for Rural Electric Cooperatives that 
help close the gaps in our power grid across the country. Over 900 
rural electric cooperatives serve 42 million people across 48 states--
including 92 percent of persistent poverty counties--those who can 
least afford to build and maintain this crucial infrastructure. These 
Rural Electric Cooperatives play vital roles in ensuring that rural 
communities have access to affordable energy.

[[Page H4485]]

  Additionally, H.R. 438 will contribute to food insecurity in our 
country. The bill calls for new work requirements for SNAP recipients, 
which exacerbates the cycle of poverty--particularly in rural 
communities.
  We cannot deny the fact that SNAP recipients who are able to work, do 
work. However, even with a full-time job, many Americans, especially 
those in our rural communities, struggle to earn enough to escape 
poverty.
  This is not an issue of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, but of 
limited job opportunities, cut-back work hours, and other extenuating 
factors.
  America cannot thrive if Americans are hungry, and this bill will 
take food out of the mouths of over 6 million Americans who will lose 
SNAP benefits due to the increased work requirements.
  If this bill passes, it will rescind $500 million dollars in WIC 
funding, underfunding the account for 2024 directly affecting nearly 5 
million hungry women and children.
  H.R. 4368 will reduce levels for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by 
$1.2 billion--hurting both families and farmers.
  As a result, 4.6 million of our people would lose out on produce and 
our farmers would lose an expected $1.2 million dollars in revenue.
  Not only that, the nearly 30 percent cut to single family direct 
housing loans--from $1.25 billion in FY 2023 to $900 million in FY 
2024--will make it harder for rural Americans to afford to buy a house.
  This means that over 2800 rural families will not be able to get 
financing to put a roof over their heads; our farmers, producers, and 
rural communities deserve a more reliable partner in our Congress.
  While it is without question that the USDA has a long and storied 
history of discrimination, Congress, however, has always been a 
steadfast partner and cornerstone of this country's agricultural 
industry. This appropriations bill, H.R. 4368, however, seeks to 
undermine enduring efforts of this Congress to ensure equal opportunity 
and access for every American.
  These appropriations should be a reliable means by which we help 
Americans from all walks of life; unfortunately, the Republican 
proposed bill before us today does not meet the moment.
  Too much is at stake--from the food we eat, to the medicine and 
medical devices on which we rely, and the fiber and materials that help 
clothe and build our country, and our national security. Americans 
deserve better.
  America cannot permit a child, a family, or a small business that has 
their potential to be limited, and opportunities curtailed simply 
because they are located in a Rural Free Delivery (RFD) zip code.
  This appropriations bill presented to us today takes food out of the 
mouths of hungry people, creates barriers for women who need access to 
medication, raises energy costs for rural Americans, and makes it 
harder for small farmers and poultry producers to meet their basic 
needs.
  We can do better. We are better than this. The American people 
deserve better.
  I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues 
to vote against this cruel proposal.
  For all these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the 
rule and the underlying legislation for all four appropriation bills.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a dilatory tactic by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I wouldn't want to speak 
about what is going on either.
  I wouldn't want to speak about the story this afternoon of Hunter 
Biden receiving a $250,000 wire originating in Beijing with the 
beneficiary address listed as Joe Biden's home. I wouldn't want to talk 
about that.
  I wouldn't want to talk about what we have been learning in the 
Committee on the Judiciary. I wouldn't want to be learning about what 
is going on or talking about what we have heard from the whistleblowers 
or from Devon Archer. I wouldn't want to talk about that at all. I 
would want to sweep that aside.
  I wouldn't want to talk about the Department of Justice that targeted 
Scott Smith and put him on the domestic terrorism list.
  I wouldn't want to talk about a Department of Justice that targeted 
Mark Houck and have used the FACE Act to go after pro-life Americans.
  I wouldn't want to talk about anything that this administration is 
doing. I would want to delay.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), 
my good friend.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for all of his hard work here.
  I just heard one of our colleagues over here suggest that somehow 
Republicans are in favor of a government shutdown. No one desires a 
government shutdown.
  What we desire and what we are working towards is changing how 
Washington works. That is the commitment that we made to the American 
people. That is why they gave us the majority.
  How do we do that? We have to change the decades of reckless spending 
and corruption. We have to change the weaponization of the Federal 
agencies that are designed to protect and serve the American people 
instead of being used against them.
  We have to change the opening of the borders that is destroying our 
communities contributing to the rising crime wave.
  We have to change the way that the Biden administration is 
administering the economy.
  We have to change the radical shift, the forced transition that they 
are trying to push us into, this radical green energy transition. It is 
nonsense.
  The American people have had enough. They see the Democrat policies 
destroying our economy, destroying our security, destroying opportunity 
for their children and grandchildren.
  We are taking a stand here. We are operating in good faith. We are 
negotiating together for the best outcome for the people, and we do not 
desire a shutdown.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, 
but I should remind him that the Republicans set an amendment deadline 
on appropriations bills after the shutdown deadline, so don't tell me 
you are interested somehow in avoiding a shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Boyle), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, to speak more 
about that.
  Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the previous speaker just 
said that no Republican Member wants a shutdown. I have the quotes 
right here, which I will submit for the Record when I am done.
  One House Republican said: ``. . . let's shut it down.''
  Another Republican colleague said: ``We should not fear a government 
shutdown . . . Most of the American people won't even miss it. . . .''
  The leader of the Republican Party, the former President, said: 
``Unless you get everything, shut it down.''
  Make no mistake about it, we are here because certain Members on the 
other side of the aisle want a shutdown. They even said they want a 
shutdown.
  Why should we be surprised about that?
  Ever since I was in high school 30 years ago, we have had five 
government shutdowns; all five took place under House Republican 
leadership. When Democrats were in charge of the House, zero government 
shutdowns during that same time period.
  Now, in terms of the one Republican Member who said that the American 
people won't miss it if there is a government shutdown, actually here 
is what would happen.
  More than 7 million Americans would lose access to their benefits: 
women, infants, and children; 2\1/2\ million Active-Duty and Reserve 
personnel serving in our Nation's Armed Forces would go without the pay 
they deserve; 2.3 million Federal workers could be furloughed or forced 
to work without pay; millions of Americans who are going to our 
airports and going through TSA lines suddenly finding themselves with 
unending delay--by the way, 1.6 million Americans who fly through our 
airports every single day will be impacted; 660,000 college students 
who rely on Federal work study.
  I was one of those students at one point who relied on that program, 
so make no mistake about it, there are real consequences to shutdowns.

  My colleague from Massachusetts cited the data before. It cost us $11 
billion the last shutdown. This one would do the same.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hageman). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, again, my colleagues don't want to focus on 
the

[[Page H4486]]

issues the American people care about, and they certainly don't want to 
talk about the issues that are, frankly, pretty embarrassing to the 
track record of my Democratic colleagues.
  As I said, they don't want to talk about Hunter Biden. They don't 
want to talk about the Department of Justice and how it has been 
weaponized against the American people.
  They don't want to talk about a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that has 
been decimated and the high cost of gasoline and electricity. They 
don't want to talk about inflation. They don't want to talk about 
housing prices.
  They don't want to talk about a Department of Defense that is more 
focused on social engineering than carrying out the mission that it is 
given.
  They don't want to talk about crime.
  They don't want to talk about woke policies in which men are swimming 
against women in swimming meets.
  They don't want to talk about the border. We are going to talk about 
the border, but I assure you, they do not want to talk about the 
border.
  They talk about consequences.
  Last Thursday, Texas authorities recovered the bodies of two 
migrants, including a 3-year-old boy who tried crossing the Rio Grande. 
Then 2 weeks ago, a 10-year-old migrant boy drowned while trying to 
cross the Rio Grande.
  Last year, 853 migrants died crossing the southern border; 53 in a 
tractor-trailer in the city of San Antonio, which I represent.
  Thousands of Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning. There are 
moms that I have to talk to, dads that I have to talk to in Texas who 
have to bury another child because we refuse utterly to secure the 
border of the United States.
  Again, the President of the United States, the Democratic leadership 
of the Senate, and the Democrat minority in the House utterly refuse to 
do their job to shut down the open border of the United States to 
secure our people. They are perfectly content with then shutting down 
the government because they refuse to do their job.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, I 
have never seen such incompetence ever in this Chamber.
  They say that they are against dilatory tactics. Yet they have only 
passed one appropriations bill. Now they are going to try to rush 11 
more in record time across the finish line. This should have happened 
in June and July.
  By the way, all these bills are so extreme that they are dead on 
arrival. They are going nowhere.

                              {time}  1815

  Their Homeland Security appropriations bill, even if we pass it, they 
are going to hold it at the desk until the Senate passes their 
ridiculous border bill, H.R. 2, which they know is going nowhere. They 
are not even sending that over to the Senate.
  They are wasting all this time for what, I don't know, but in the 
meantime, right now we should be considering a continuing resolution so 
this government doesn't shut down.
  I never thought I would ever be on the floor saying anything nice 
about the Senate, but over there Democrats and Republicans are actually 
talking to each other. They actually came to an agreement on a 
continuing resolution, and hopefully they will act on it and they will 
send it over here so we can end this nonsense.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, last summer, our Democratic colleagues sent a 
package, a minibus of six appropriations bills, and in one vote wiped 
their hands and said they were done. Then there was a massive omnibus 
spending bill that was sent over to us in December.
  What I ask my colleagues is: What would you cut? What would you do to 
actually reduce the deficit and reduce the debt of the United States 
when we are $33 trillion in debt and we are going to have $2 trillion 
of deficit spending this year?
  We are putting forward bills that would reduce spending. We are 
putting forward bills that would actually move the Department of 
Defense appropriations bills over to the Senate, and do so responsibly, 
the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the State-
Foreign Operations, and Agriculture, on top of MILCON-VA, which we 
already passed.
  My colleague talks about wasting time. What have we been doing for 
the last 20 minutes besides waste time here on the floor of the House 
with a dilatory tactic, which my colleagues fully understand has no 
basis. They are objecting to a waiver that they have constantly used 
themselves.
  The fact is they have no message so my colleagues are resorting to 
dilatory tactics.
  Again, shut down the open border or risk shutting down the government 
of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, 
nays 198, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 404]

                               YEAS--209

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--198

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur

[[Page H4487]]


     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Allen
     Baird
     Bera
     Burlison
     Bush
     Carson
     Carter (TX)
     Clyburn
     Crenshaw
     Crow
     Dean (PA)
     DesJarlais
     Goldman (NY)
     Huffman
     LaMalfa
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luna
     Lynch
     McCollum
     Nunn (IA)
     Peltola
     Rogers (AL)
     Stansbury
     Van Drew
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1837

  Ms. CHU and Mr. COHEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HUDSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 404.
  Mr. LaMalfa. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``YEA'' on rollcall No. 404.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 404.

                              {time}  1845

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis). The gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, the Rules Committee reported a 
rule for four appropriations measures and made in order 440 total 
amendments.
  We bring to the floor H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act; 180 amendments were made in order.
  This bill, combined with the amendments that were made in order, 
takes significant steps to invest in resources that will help deter 
China, will cut the bureaucracy, will support military families and 
servicemembers, and will restore the Department of Defense's focus to 
warfighting rather than social engineering.
  We bring to the floor H.R. 4665, the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024.
  This bill would defund international bodies like the World Health 
Organization, eliminate woke offices at the State Department, defund 
John Kerry, and it stands up for Israel while funding our State 
Department and foreign operations.
  H.R. 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, was also 
a part of the rule.
  This bill makes significant strides to reduce spending to pre-COVID 
levels, prevents members of the Communist Party of China from buying 
United States farmland, defunds the FDA's rule allowing abortion drugs 
by mail, and makes strides in ending wokeness at the United States 
Department of Agriculture.
  Madam Speaker, importantly, these three bills, combined with the next 
one that I am going to talk about, reflect our commitment to reduce 
spending and an agreement to reduce spending further than the FRA, 
which was passed earlier this year, to a target of $1.526 trillion of 
discretionary spending.
  That is our goal. That is our objective. It is something the American 
people are clamoring for from their leaders in Washington--to actually 
address the debt crisis fueling inflation and undermining the 
sovereignty of our Nation.
  This is why we are here. This is the job we are supposed to do. I 
have offered to my colleagues that I wish this were July. We passed 
MILCON-VA in July. The Senate has passed nothing.
  Last year, under Democrat control, six bills were packaged together 
in the summer and passed, and then a massive omnibus bill was passed in 
December.
  I had an exchange with one of my Democratic colleagues a minute ago 
about this not being regular order, but this actually is regular order.
  It is late in the process, I acknowledge. We are trying to move four 
bills that would total, when combined with MILCON-VA, upwards of almost 
three-quarters of the discretionary funding for our government.
  Hopefully, we can reach some resolution as to how to move forward 
funding the government appropriately. We obviously have disagreements 
on what funding the government appropriately means, which stands here 
at the center of the debate, stands here at the center of the impasse, 
which brings me to H.R. 4367, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act.
  It is a good bill, has strong provisions, strong language in it to 
try to encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary 
Mayorkas to do their jobs.
  In our view, it is not sufficient because the Secretary, backed by 
the President of the United States, has utterly refused to do his job.
  This should concern all of us. Every Member of this body, Democrat or 
Republican, Texas or New York, Florida or California, ought to be 
concerned with what is happening to our country, what is happening in 
Eagle Pass, Texas.
  Madam Speaker, 11,000 human beings, 11,000 the night before last, 
304,000 apprehensions in August--this is incomprehensible. The human 
toll is staggering; the deaths from fentanyl poisoning, the things that 
we have talked about ad nauseam on this floor.
  As I was alluding to earlier, it is not compassionate to have open 
borders as currently exist under this administration and under the 
leadership of Secretary Mayorkas.
  Last Thursday, Texas authorities recovered the bodies of two 
migrants, including a 3-year-old boy, trying to cross the Rio Grande.
  Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, a 10-year-old migrant drowned while 
trying to cross the Rio Grande, and 853 migrants died last year.
  This is every day in Texas. I get a phone call or a text from a 
rancher every day in Texas. They find a body on their ranch. How is 
that remotely acceptable?
  That is at the center of this debate. There are countless issues we 
disagree on, countless issues we need to address, and the 
appropriations process can, in fact, through the power of the purse, 
address many of those issues. These bills do that.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, these bills 
are dead on arrival. Well, that is how this process works. We put 
forward bills, and if there is disagreement, if the Senate disagrees, 
then we conference. I hope we can get to that stage.
  I, again, will posit I wish this were July or August or 3 weeks ago, 
but we sit here with four bills that will fund almost 75 percent of the 
government when added to MILCON-VA.

  Let's do our job. Let's work to move the DHS bill. Let's work 
together to figure out how to deal with the border.
  To be very clear, we must address the border. That is a nonnegotiable 
truth;

[[Page H4488]]

that we must address the border. We can sit around a table and debate 
how, but we must address it.
  There has been too much death, too much destruction, too much damage 
to States and to human beings across this country, and the Federal 
Government has an obligation to do its job, and that is what we are 
endeavoring to do.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, forgive me, but what the hell is going on around here? 
We just heard the gentleman from Texas scream talking points that sound 
like they were written in Mar-a-Lago.
  This is crazy. I can't believe I have to say this, but the Federal 
Government of the United States is shutting down on Saturday because a 
handful of MAGA Republicans didn't get everything they wanted. I have 
to tell you, that is a bad thing. It is a bad thing for our country.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are acting like 
a shutdown is no big deal. Stop it. Stop it. This is not a mock 
Congress. This isn't the Model U.N.
  We are talking about real people's lives here. Shutdowns cost 
taxpayer money. Shutdowns hurt the economy. Shutdowns mean people don't 
get paid. Shutdowns are bad. Yet, Republicans are on the verge of 
shutting down the government.
  We have a Democratic President. We have a Democratic Senate. All we 
need is this Republican House of Representatives to get their act 
together, but they can't.
  Their bumbling, incompetent leadership can't even do the basic job of 
standing up to their extreme Members so we can keep the lights on.
  It might have made sense for them to pass these appropriation bills 
and send them to the Senate to iron out our differences if it were 
still June or July. It is September.
  They have spent months fighting with themselves, and now we are 4 
days from our deadline. Have they ever looked at a calendar? Have they 
ever heard of the concept of scheduling? Have they ever heard of clock 
management?
  You don't start a months-long process 4 days before the deadline, but 
here we are, considering the most extreme, partisan, unhinged MAGA 
messaging bills this majority could come up with.
  My colleague from Texas talks about the border, the border, the 
border. It is an important issue, but these bills cut funding for the 
border. He cares so much about securing the border that he is willing 
to--wait for it--defund the border.
  Madam Speaker, they are not even sending their Homeland Security 
appropriations bill to the Senate. What brilliant legislative mind came 
up with this bright idea?
  Let me explain what this rule does. The House is refusing to send 
this bill to the Senate until the Republicans' extreme immigration bill 
is signed into law, which is never going to happen.
  What will happen because of all their nonsense is that the people who 
actually work to secure the border will not get paid. This is nuts.
  These bills are chock full of MAGA culture wars. Their agriculture 
bill takes money away from food assistance for pregnant mothers and 
newborns. I could spend all day talking about how awful these bills 
are.
  The bottom line is we have 4 days, and I am asking my Republican 
colleagues: Do not shut this government down because you are all 
fighting with yourselves. Do your job and keep the government open. 
That shouldn't be too much to ask.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, with all due respect to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the bill we put forward does not cut funding. It 
increases spending over last year.
  We can debate the merits of that and debate how much we need to 
restrain spending, but it is simply not true. Let's at least speak 
about the facts before us and the legislation in front of us.
  I heard my colleague talking about getting our act together. I would 
say to my colleague from Massachusetts: How about the Senate and the 
President get their act together? How about they actually do their jobs 
and secure the border of United States?
  The gentleman from Massachusetts just blithely swept it aside. Oh, it 
is an important issue. Tell that to the people in Texas. In August, 
304,000 encounters, the fifth month in fiscal year 2023 over 200,000, 
2.2 million in fiscal year 2023 encounters.
  Since the President took office, there have been nearly 6 million 
illegal migrants encountered along the southwest border, more than the 
populations of Houston and Dallas combined.
  We have had 2 million released in the United States, thousands of 
migrants traveling through the Darien Gap, trains chock-full of people, 
children getting sold into the sex trafficking trade on a daily basis.
  We know it because it is in Federal orders from judges. These are not 
made-up facts. They are right before us, and my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle don't care, and the Senate leadership, the Democrats 
leading the Senate and the President don't care, and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security doesn't care.
  My answer to the question about why we are saying that H.R. 2 must be 
signed into law before the funding bill gets passed is because the law 
must change, and the Secretary must be forced to do his job because he 
is refusing to do it.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, it is interesting here, my colleagues on 
the other side saying, shutdown, shutdown, shutdown; that is all you 
hear.
  What about the shutdown that occurred for the COVID virus for over a 
year and a half? What about the shutdown that kept children out of 
school for over a year and a half?
  It is outrageous that here we are on this floor trying to pass 
legislation to cut spending to put money back in the pockets of the 
taxpayers.
  Folks, we are in an economic crisis. We are in a national security 
crisis. The fact is my colleagues are continually against a shutdown, 
which is never good, but in this case, we are fighting for the American 
people.
  As Representative Roy mentioned with Homeland Security, go to the 
border. Go to the border and see what is happening there. See the rape 
trees. See the people coming across this border that now number in 
excess of the 5.2 million from my State of South Carolina.
  Think about the medical crisis. We don't know what they are coming 
with. Think about the hundreds of programs that they are automatically 
going to be enrolled in.
  Think about the Social Security numbers and the driver's licenses 
that are given to illegals that occurred in New York City. Think about 
the flights paid for by taxpayers' money to go all over this country 
illegally.
  It is un-American, it is an invasion, and my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle will pay a price as they are being booed in 
different parts of the country because of leaving this border open, 
leaving this country unsecure. We have never faced this kind of crisis 
that we face right now just on that issue alone.
  On the spending issue, I would like for those listening today to 
realize it boils back to our $32 trillion, $20,000 per second it is 
costing the taxpayers.
  They don't want to cut anything. They want to go on with a bloated 
Federal Government and continue spending as we have done before. We are 
saying no.

                              {time}  1900

  I am proud of my colleagues. We will sit up here and fight if it 
takes all night long. It is a sad day that we are arguing over things 
that should be common sense. It is un-American what they are trying to 
do.
  Now, the four appropriations bills, the Homeland Security bill, tying 
H.R. 2 to it, is exactly the right thing. My good friends on the other 
side of the aisle talk about reduced funding. They are not enforcing 
anything.
  Mayorkas is not enforcing anything. Why pay him? All this does is 
say: Unless you enforce the border and include

[[Page H4489]]

it, we are not paying Mayorkas a dime for homeland security.
  Look at the Department of Defense. Look at the cuts, yet the 
increases overall which we have given our Department of Defense. The 
FDA, we have made some legitimate cuts on the FDA on some things that 
should have been.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina says 
we keep on talking about government shutdown, government shutdown. The 
reason we do is because we listened to you.
  On September 19 in the PBS Hour interview, you were asked: How likely 
is a shutdown right now?
  Your response was: It is 100 percent.
  We have heard that from other Members.
  The gentleman keeps on talking about the border. We believe the 
border is a serious issue. The border is not open. Maybe people think 
it is open because you guys keep on saying it is open. You are 
signaling to people that it is open. It is not open, and we don't 
believe it should be open. We don't view this issue as a political 
talking point. We want to get results.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against a fiscal year 
2023 government funding package that President Biden signed into law 
that provided Border Patrol with $7.153 billion, a 17 percent increase 
from the year before.
  The funding package provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol 
agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at every point of entry, and 
$230 million for technology, like the autonomous surveillance towers. 
Does any of that sound like open borders?
  Here is the kicker. House Republicans voted ``no.''
  By the way, Mr. Norman, this bill does nothing about Mr. Mayorkas' 
salary, but it does cut salaries for people who are working at the 
border, Border Patrol agents.
  The gentleman from Texas said that he wants the Senate to get their 
act together.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
press release from the chair of the Appropriations Committee, U.S. 
Senator Patty Murray, who just announced that Democrats and Republicans 
have come to a bipartisan agreement on a continuing resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

   [From the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sept. 26, 2023]

            Murray Releases Bipartisan Continuing Resolution

       Washington, DC.--Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), 
     Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released a 
     bipartisan Continuing Resolution to extend government funding 
     through November 17, prevent a government shutdown at the end 
     of the month, and allow work on full-year appropriations 
     bills to continue.
       ``A shutdown would be nothing short of a catastrophe for 
     American families, our national security, and our economy. It 
     is critical that we avoid one, and that's exactly what this 
     bipartisan legislation will do,'' said Chair Murray. ``While 
     we continue work on annual appropriations bills to address 
     our country's full needs in the year ahead, this legislation 
     prevents a shutdown, keeps our government funded, and 
     provides critical dollars to support communities struck by 
     disaster and support Ukraine at a pivotal moment in its 
     defensive efforts against Putin's brutal, unprovoked war of 
     aggression. This bill ensures wildland firefighters will not 
     see a pay cut, and it prevents critical laws from lapsing to 
     ensure the FAA and community health centers can continue 
     operating. We have much more to do, but we should pass this 
     legislation immediately--there is no time to waste.''
       The bipartisan Continuing Resolution:
       1. Extends government funding through November 17.
       2. Extends funding to help communities struck by disaster 
     and continues support for Ukraine at a pivotal moment.
       3. Prevents critical health statutes from lapsing to ensure 
     funding for community health enters and teaching health 
     centers does not expire.
       4. Extends the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 
     authorities through the end of the calendar year.
       5. Ensures federal wildland firefighters will not see a pay 
     cut.
       6. Ensures the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
     Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) will continue to be able 
     to serve the nearly 7 million women and children who rely on 
     it.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, they are talking to each other. You 
can't even get an agreement amongst Republicans--how pathetic.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their 
comments to the Chair and not to each other.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the American people deserve to know why we 
are in this position. They need to know that less than 5 percent of the 
435 Members of this body have put us in this position.
  The gentleman from Texas indicated how they did that. They have held 
the rest of us hostage unless the bill that they want is passed. They 
are taking hostage the American people. They are taking hostage Federal 
employees. They have taken hostage the Congress of the United States.
  What ought to happen is the over 300 of us--147 Republicans and 165 
Democrats vote to compromise. I would call all of your attention to a 
1998 speech in October by Newt Gingrich, he called it the 
``Perfectionist Caucus'' speech.
  He made a deal with Clinton because Clinton was the President. As 
Newt Gingrich pointed out, we had a lot of Democrats in the House, a 
lot of Democrats in the Senate, and a lot of Republicans in the Senate, 
who he said, by the way, don't always agree with us.
  The American people expect us to make it work. How do we make it 
work?
  We make compromises.
  The 5 percent that shut down the Congress for a week did it because 
they didn't like the compromise, and they stomped their feet and they 
sent us home, which of course cost money because none of us took a 
salary cut. Nothing got done that week.
  Yeah, maybe it should be back in July, but it was shut down again 
just last week when they sent us home because less than 5 percent--in 
this case, a little more than 1 percent, of the Congress--1 percent of 
this body had a tantrum.
  They wouldn't vote for national security. They wouldn't vote for a 
rule that put a defense appropriation bill on the floor. Their bill, 
not our bill.
  Madam Speaker, the American public needs to know why their House is 
in the chaos of which the gentleman from Texas talked about is 
occurring at the border.
  We are going to be here for the next 4 or 5 days, maybe even longer, 
pretending that somehow we are compromising, and we are moving forward. 
That is not the case. We have had a small group take the House hostage, 
the American peoples' House hostage.
  We can talk about the numbers and disagree on the numbers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I only have 30 seconds left to say some 
pretty substantive things, and I won't have the time to do it.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. America ought to know that when I was the 
majority leader we didn't shut down the government. When I was the 
majority leader on this side of the House, we passed every bill we 
wanted to pass because we are not a divided party, as the party that is 
now in the majority has so clearly demonstrated on a regular basis how 
divided they are.
  The Speaker made a deal. Keep the deal. Stop taking hostage the 
American people and their government.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, the only people being held hostage are the 
American people by Democrat leadership in the Senate and in the White 
House; holding them hostage to a wide open border, endangering them 
every single day, including the 110,000 some-odd migrants that have 
been sent to and gone to New York City, and that are endangering our 
people on the streets.
  The American people are, in fact, being held hostage because this 
Democratic leadership refuses to do their job to secure the border.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the Rules 
Committee who put in so many hours over the past several days to 
prepare what is an unprecedented rule, in my experience. It is 
important for moving us forward.

[[Page H4490]]

  To the members of the Rules Committee who put in the long hours this 
weekend, I certainly want to thank the members of that committee and 
the staff for working so hard. We are going to get this underlying 
legislation to the floor. It is important.
  You are hearing a lot about the border this evening for a reason. A 
lot of us have studied the problems at the border for several years, 
but I will just tell you, it has never been this bad, and people see 
that. We are constantly asked at home: Why can't you do something about 
that?
  Mr. Roy is exactly right. We did pass a very significant policy bill, 
H.R. 2, earlier this year, but it does no good to continue to fund it 
if the administration is not going to enforce the law--even the current 
law--but enforce the law, which is essentially the will of the 
Congress.
  What we are doing here today is critical. We are fulfilling our 
obligation to our constituents and the American people. We are going to 
fund the government in a responsible and fiscally sound manner, as 
opposed to this business of usual stuff that has been going on for 
several years where Congress is expected to rubberstamp what comes over 
from the Senate or rubberstamp what is asked for by the President.
  Our duty extends far beyond what is happening just today. The next 
generation and the next generation after that, our future, the 
country's future depends on us standing strong at this moment and 
ensuring that the funds of the American taxpayer are wisely spent.
  This administration's track record has failed on so many levels--
failed my constituents, failed your constituents, Madam Speaker, the 
people of Texas, and the migrants who have lost their lives on this 
dangerous journey to cross our border.

  Madam Speaker, this administration is not only complicit, but bears 
the sole responsibility for this humanitarian crisis that is unfolding 
before our very eyes.
  The Biden administration's failure to enforce our laws, their 
shameful handcuffing of our courageous Border Patrol agents from 
effectively safeguarding our borders has allowed the southern border to 
fall from anarchy into a calamity.
  Madam Speaker, our work here today signifies our crucial mission to 
rectify past errors and steer our Nation back on the path of fiscal 
responsibility. People need to know that we recognize our solemn duty 
to correct course and restore fiscal sanity, not only for our sake but 
for the sake of those who will come after.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, breaking news, news flash, the Senate 
just voted on cloture on the motion to proceed on the CR, 77-19. They 
are working in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to get this thing 
done so we don't shut the government down.
  What are my Republican friends doing?
  They are still fighting amongst themselves. We don't even have a 
draft of anything that they are proposing in terms of avoiding a 
shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my Republican 
colleagues to end this MAGA meltdown and come together to avert a 
government shutdown and the chaos it will bring our country.
  I just returned from my hometown of Las Vegas--the entertainment 
capital of the world--and spent the weekend talking to my constituents 
who are fed up with the political theater here in Washington.
  They can't understand how extreme Members of this body won't stop 
until they force this country into a government shutdown.
  Maybe those Members should have spent the weekend talking to the 
thousands of TSA agents who are going to be forced to work without pay; 
or the 53,000 women and children in Nevada whose vital nutrition 
assistance will be put in jeopardy; or maybe the 200,000 Nevada 
veterans whose VA claims processing and wait times will grow; or the 
tens of thousands of Nevadans whose Medicare and Social Security 
inquiries will be put on hold.
  Most importantly, maybe they should have listened to the thousands of 
hospitality workers and small businesses who make Las Vegas the magical 
place that it is, and whose livelihoods will be put at risk by a 
shutdown.
  Have no doubt, without funding to keep the 50 million visitors moving 
through Harry Reid International Airport each year, our city, our 
hardworking families, and our local economy will suffer the 
consequences of these extremists' political games, and the rest of the 
country will, too.
  The U.S. Travel Association estimates that a government shutdown will 
cost the U.S. travel economy as much as $140 million every single day. 
Let's be clear: we all know how this story ends. It ends by working 
across the aisle, that is what will get us out of this mess.
  House Democrats are ready to fund the government to avert a shutdown. 
The question right now is: Can Republican leadership stand up to the 
most extreme minority wing of their party and end this nonsense?
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up, my 
constituents are fed up, the people we represent are fed up, and they 
are fed up with the very deal that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
just described that came out of the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, that is 45 days of continued spending at the existing 
levels and continuing the status quo with an additional $6 billion for 
Ukraine, and nothing to deal with the border. Nothing. Zero changes at 
the border.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Perry).

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, we were promised that this year would be 
different, that we would run all 12 spending bills individually and 
actually find some savings for the American people. Yet, this is 
another year where the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are just 
squandered.
  Congress has passed all required spending bills only four times in 
about the 50 years since we have been under the current system. The 
last time Congress actually passed all the bills was 1996, when the 
U.S. national debt was a staggering $5.2 trillion.
  Just last week the debt hit $33 trillion. This is a cycle of 
perpetual failure, and, yes, our citizens are sick of it. The American 
people have lost faith in our ability to handle the country's fiscal 
issues.
  Madam Speaker, the other side talks about how efficiently they moved 
through things. Yeah, they moved through things. In 1996, we were $5 
trillion in debt. Now we are $33 trillion in debt. They have 
efficiently spent us into bankruptcy because there is no amount of 
money, Madam Speaker, there is zero amount of money that they won't 
spend. They will spend as much as the American people make and then so 
much more.
  The cost of living is tied to the spending, Madam Speaker. Our 
citizens--my bosses and their bosses--can't afford their groceries, 
gasoline, or electricity because this town continues to spend like 
there is no tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, we should pass this rule so we can pass the 12 bills 
and so we can reject the nongermane Senate bill that hooks the FAA with 
Ukraine spending. Maybe both of those are important, Madam Speaker, but 
tell me why I have got to vote to keep airplanes flying in the United 
States and also vote to spend money in a war 8,000 miles away. The 
American people are sick of that failure theater, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
complaining about the mismanagement of this House of Representatives. 
It is reinforcing our message. He can complain all he wants, but he 
can't blame Speaker Pelosi, Joe Biden, or anybody but his own 
leadership. I hate to tell him, but his party is in charge.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Boyle), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, a wise coach once said: You 
are your record.
  Well, let's look at the record. Over the last 30 years, five 
government shutdowns, all five took place under House

[[Page H4491]]

Republican leadership. When Democrats were in charge of the House, 
those 30 years, zero government shutdowns. Heck, some on the other side 
like shutdowns so much, the last one was under a Republican House, a 
Republican Senate, and a Republican President.
  Now, some on the other side have said publicly that there would be 
essentially no consequences to a government shutdown. One Member even 
said people won't even miss it.
  Here is what happened during the last Republican shutdown: $11 
billion lost to this economy, billions of taxpayer money wasted, 
140,000 fewer jobs as a result of that shutdown.
  You look at those that took place even before 2018, and you see 
similar results. This is all, by the way, from the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office. There are real costs to a government 
shutdown.
  Here we are just 4 days, 4 hours, and some minutes away from the 
shutdown. It pains me to say this, but we see the Senate doing its job. 
They actually just voted on a bipartisan basis, by a 4-1 margin, to 
make sure we don't have a government shutdown.
  What is the leadership doing here in the House? Debating bills that, 
frankly, will have no impact whatsoever on whether or not we shut down 
at midnight Saturday.
  Let's stand up to this extreme MAGA shutdown. Let's say ``no'' to the 
shutdown. Let's pass the bipartisan continuing resolution tonight and 
make sure we don't disrupt the lives of the American people.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is right, you are your 
record, and our record in this country right now is $33 trillion in 
debt, facing $2 trillion annual deficits. We are in so much debt, we 
are driving up deficits so fast, we are devaluing American money so 
rapidly that in America today, you can't even bribe Democratic Senators 
with cash alone. You need to bring gold bars to get the job done just 
so that the bribes hold value.
  My friends, I am extremely in favor of this rule because this rule 
moves us onto single-subject spending bills, and this is the only way 
to liberate this House and this country from the scourge of governing 
by continuing resolution and omnibus legislation.
  It is an insult to our governing authority to have the Senate lash 
Ukraine funding to the reauthorization of the FAA, and, by the way, 
every other thing in government. The American people know that in our 
State legislatures throughout this land there is a maturity and a 
seriousness to set a top line, balanced budget number and then 
appropriate to each of the agencies in government independently. The 
fact that we don't do that is not a bug of the system. It is a feature 
of the system.
  The one thing I agree with my Democratic colleagues on is for the 
last 8 months, this House has been poorly led. We own that, and we have 
to do something about it. My Democratic colleagues will have an 
opportunity to do something about that, too, and we will see if they 
bail out our failed Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, there is a pattern here that I have seen develop over 
the years. When Republicans are in charge, the debt doesn't matter. 
When Democrats are in charge, all of a sudden, the debt is the central 
issue. It is funny, when Donald Trump, who I don't know how many 
indictments he has against him at this particular point, how many 
dozens of years in jail he faces if he is convicted, but when he was 
President, he added $8 trillion to the debt, and there was silence from 
the other side of the aisle. That was only in 4 years, by the way. It 
is a little bit ironic to hear some of this back and forth here.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I just got off the telephone with one 
of my chief law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas, in Harris 
County, who just simply begged us not to shut down the government.
  As everyone knows, I was on the floor just an hour or so ago saying, 
breaking news, I am against a government shutdown. We will fight 
against the government shutdown. My good friend on the other side of 
the aisle is complaining that the Senate did their work with such an 
amazing, overwhelming majority.
  Let me tell you how we can solve that before I get into discussion of 
why we are standing here today. Put the Senate bill on the floor. That 
is the rules that are the operational underpinnings of the House and 
Senate. They send it over, and we put it on the floor. If you don't 
like it, you change it and send it back. That way, you are engaged in 
stopping the shutdown.
  However, if we sit here tonight and do nothing, the government 
shutdown, in particular, is going to impact the gross domestic product 
from 2 to 6 percentage points or $2- to $6 billion in lost output. That 
is people without jobs, resulting in the creation of 120,000 fewer 
private-sector jobs.
  In addition, things like Medicare and Medicaid are going to be in 
jeopardy. Our economic security will be in jeopardy. Education and 
training will be in jeopardy, infrastructure dollars; and, 
particularly, my seniors and others in need of Social Security checks 
are just going to be out in the cold.
  Combining, however, the bills that my friends want us to move on, 
they attack women's reproductive rights, they attack the LGBTQ+ 
community, who are continuously victimized for medical care that they 
need. They talk about Homeland Security, and it is completely untenable 
that they exclude funding for a new southwest border contingency fund 
that would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing 
conditions on the southwest border. They cut out shelter and services 
programs. It is shameful to eliminate those programs that provide 
temporary food and shelter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Salazar). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in addition--can you believe it?--
they slash or eliminate the number of loans awarded to financially 
distressed farmers under the agriculture bill; and then targeting 
violence and terrorism prevention grants, they take that out.
  What are we talking about here? Let's deal with the CR from the 
Senate. You don't like it, add something to it, and send it back. Today 
is September 26. We will be able to say to the American people, we are 
adults, and we can stop the shutdown.
  Let's go to work. These bills have to go back to the table again. I 
want to make sure we don't have a shutdown, and we can do it with the 
Senate CR right now.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, our debt, our deficit, 
and our spending are indefensible. Three years ago, our national debt 
was $23 trillion, a staggering sum by any measure. Since then, it has 
grown by 50 percent to $33 trillion.
  We have heard allegations tonight from one side of the Chamber that 
everybody deserves blame for that crisis, so let me be very clear. 
During that time, I voted against $13 trillion in spending. 
Nevertheless, we find ourselves at a tipping point.
  In the last 10 years, we have spent $3 trillion just on interest on 
the debt. In the next 10 years, we won't spend $3 trillion on interest, 
we will spend $10 trillion. For that money, our country gets nothing. 
No sailor, no soldier, no safety net. We get nothing.
  Making matters worse, in 7 years, Medicare is insolvent and in 10 
years, Social Security is insolvent.
  We must get our fiscal house in order.
  Now, the appropriations bills before us move us in that direction. 
They do so through real, robust, and significant cuts, billions of 
dollars in cuts.
  Are the bills perfect? No.
  Do I support every single cut in every single bill? No.

[[Page H4492]]

  Can we balance the budget through nondefense discretionary cuts 
alone? No.
  To be honest, these bills will not solve all that ails us, but they 
are a critically important step toward stopping this runaway train. 
Business as usual, Madam Speaker, is unacceptable. A ``yes'' vote 
acknowledges that and moves us in the right direction.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Business as usual for my Republican friends is more tax cuts for 
corporations and millionaires and billionaires, slashing programs that 
help the most vulnerable in our country, and subsidies to Big Oil 
companies and more and more money to big defense contractors.
  Let me just explain to some of my colleagues, especially the moderate 
Republicans, if there are any of them left:
  The ag appropriations bill, before the manager's amendment, which, by 
the way, imposed even deeper cuts in some of these programs, slashes 
WIC by $800 million. It reduces the value for WIC fruit and vegetable 
vouchers by $1.2 billion, hurting both families and farmers.

  It guts the Rural Energy for America Program by $500 million.
  It guts rural electric investments in clean energy and energy 
efficiency from the Inflation Reduction Act by $1 billion.
  It eliminates a lifeline that has already helped more than 20,000 
distressed farmers who have received assistance from the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
  It blocks FDA from acting on important tobacco issues, banning 
menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and limiting the nicotine in 
cigarettes.
  It blocks the Biden executive orders on diversity, equality, 
inclusion, and accessibility.
  It reverses the 2023 FDA decision to allow mifepristone to be 
dispensed in certified pharmacies with a prescription instead of only 
hospitals, clinics, and medical offices.
  This bill, made worse by a manager's amendment, guts food programs, 
nutrition programs to our kids, to pregnant mothers and newborns.
  What are they thinking? What sense does that make? How does anybody 
on that side of the aisle vote for a bill that does that? To my 
moderate friends, if they are still around, how do they do that? This 
is unacceptable. By the way, read the fine print in these 
appropriations bills, look at the programs they cut.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Lois Frankel).

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this rule, which is for a bad bill that takes food out of the mouths of 
children, hurts our farmers, guts climate change actions, and is 
another step toward the Republicans' dark and extreme goal to ban 
abortion nationwide. More specifically, it nullifies the FDA's decision 
to make the abortion pill, mifepristone, more accessible.
  The medication abortion pill has been used effectively and safely for 
20 years. FDA made an evidence-based decision to allow patients to fill 
this medication as they would fill any other prescription, by going to 
a drugstore or to their doctor or getting it through the mail.
  The FDA decision removed a barrier for women in underserved 
communities in need of care. Reversing this decision harms the most 
vulnerable populations--women in maternity care deserts, women without 
reliable access to transportation or childcare, and women who can't 
take time off from work to visit a doctor.
  Madam Speaker, I say this with emphasis: All women deserve the 
freedom to decide whether or when to start or grow a family without 
interference from politicians.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the science, listen 
to the FDA, and reject this rule for these and so many reasons.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, one of the previous speakers from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle talked about victims, and I would note the 
extent to which we have countless victims, as we have talked about 
before, from the scourge of fentanyl poisonings across this country.
  Two weeks ago, 1-year-old Nicholas Feliz Dominici died from fentanyl 
exposure from a kilo of fentanyl at an at-home daycare in the Bronx, 
New York, that, reportedly, a new arrival from the Dominican Republic 
was renting out.
  More than 25,000 pounds of fentanyl have been seized in FY23. I spent 
time in August sitting on panels with moms and dads who lost their 
children to fentanyl poisonings--six children in the school district in 
which I reside. It is commonplace in Texas. It is becoming, 
unfortunately, more commonplace around the country.
  How about the woman who was stabbed 28 times by an illegal immigrant 
with a criminal record in Pennsylvania, or the 10-year-old boy who was 
on a schoolbus on the first day of school killed by an illegal 
immigrant who ran into the bus? How about the father in Florida who 
opened his home to a supposedly unaccompanied alien child, who was 19 
years old, and he stabbed and killed the father of this family who 
opened his home?
  This is happening every day to the American people, and my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle do not care. They watch Secretary 
Mayorkas completely ignore his duty to secure the border of the United 
States, leaving us entirely exposed to cartels and to the flood of 
fentanyl pouring into our communities. Border Patrol is overwhelmed, 
trying to manage numbers at the border, which is completely avoidable 
if the Secretary and the President would actually follow the law.
  Republicans have responded with a bill that would force the Secretary 
to follow the law and that would improve the laws of the United States 
to secure the border of the United States, as we are constitutionally 
required to do. We have made that a condition precedent for giving more 
money to the Secretary of Homeland Security as he ignores his job and 
endangers the American people. We will continue to do that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, for the gentleman to say that people on our side of 
the aisle don't care about the fentanyl problem in this country, that 
we don't care that our constituents are dying, that people are dying in 
this country, that is offensive.
  One of the reasons why people watching this debate despise Congress 
at this moment is because of the characterizations that are made by the 
gentleman.
  I will tell you this: We believe we should fund our Border Patrol 
agents. We believe we should do more to confront these issues. We don't 
use these matters as a political football or political talking point. 
To come down here and say that somehow we don't care, that is 
offensive.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from CBS News titled: ``Government shutdown could jeopardize 
U.S. credit rating, Moody's warns.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                  [From CBS News, September 25, 2023]

 Government Shutdown Could Jeopardize U.S. Credit Rating, Moody's Warns

                           (By Aimee Picchi)

       The U.S.' credit worthiness is one of its most prized 
     fiscal assets, with global investors relying on the guarantee 
     that the nation can make good on its debts. But now, a 
     leading credit agencies is warning that a possible federal 
     government shutdown this week could tarnish the country's 
     goldplated rating.
       Time is running out for for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to 
     find a compromise to keep government agencies running and to 
     avoid a shutdown on October 1, the first day of the new 
     fiscal year. If McCarthy and other Republicans are unable to 
     find a solution, funding would expire on September 30 and 
     many agencies would be forced to halt some of their 
     operations. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers also 
     wouldn't draw a paycheck until the crisis is resolved.
       With Congress divided between a Democratic-controlled 
     Senate and Republican-led House--and with some far-right 
     conservatives looking to use the shutdown as leverage to 
     force government spending cuts--many are bracing for a 
     stoppage that could last weeks. While the actual economic 
     impact of a shutdown is likely to be reversed once the 
     government reopens, the damage

[[Page H4493]]

     could be longer-lasting for other reasons, Moody's Investors 
     Service said Monday in a report.
       ``A shutdown would be credit negative'' for the U.S. debt, 
     while a shutdown ``would underscore the weakness of U.S. 
     institutional and governance strength relative to other Aaa-
     rated sovereigns that we have highlighted in recent years,'' 
     Moody's analysts wrote.
       The credit rating firm added, ``In particular, it would 
     demonstrate the significant constraints that intensifying 
     political polarization put on fiscal policymaking at a time 
     of declining fiscal strength, driven by widening fiscal 
     deficits and deteriorating debt affordability.''
       Moody's didn't change its Aaa rating on U.S. debt, but 
     cautioned that the nation's ``lack of an institutional focus 
     on medium-term fiscal planning . . . is fundamentally 
     different from what is seen in most other Aaa-rated peers, 
     for instance historically in Germany (Aaa stable) and Canada 
     (Aaa stable).''


                             no longer aaa

       The warning comes roughly two months after Fitch Ratings, 
     another major credit ratings agency, downgraded U.S. credit 
     from the highest rating, citing the nation's rising debt and 
     eroding political stability. In that case, the firm lowered 
     the nation's rating to AA+, from its previous AAA level.
       Fitch cited the country's ``repeated debt-limit political 
     standoffs and last-minute resolutions'' as weakening 
     investors' faith in U.S. fiscal management.
       Like Fitch, Moody's also cited the nation's ballooning debt 
     as a pressing issue, partly because it requires higher costs 
     to service the debt, resulting in less fiscal flexibility. 
     Meanwhile, political infighting could create ``extremely 
     difficult'' conditions for creating a plan to reverse 
     widening fiscal deficits by either increasing federal revenue 
     or cutting entitlement spending, it warned.
       ``In the absence of significant fiscal policy measures, we 
     expect debt affordability to deteriorate at a much faster 
     pace, with federal interest payments relative to revenue and 
     GDP rising to around 27 percent and 4.6 percent, 
     respectively, by 2033, from 9.7 percent and 1.9 percent in 
     2022, driven by materially higher interest rates and 
     relatively weak revenue,'' Moody's said.


                     costs of a government shutdown

       Despite such concerns, the economic effects of a government 
     shutdown itself is likely to be short, with the impact most 
     heavily felt in industries and geographical areas with a high 
     concentration of federal workers, such as Washington, D.C., 
     Moody's noted.
       ``Some defense contractors and municipal issuers, including 
     mass transit systems, and certain municipal housing sector 
     bonds that rely on annual federal appropriations could be 
     affected,'' Moody's, led by analyst William Foster, said in 
     the report. ``Mass transit authorities, already grappling 
     with lower post-ridership and the looming expiration of 
     pandemic relief funds, may face further challenges due to 
     potential delays in federal grants.''
       Even so, a shutdown would occur just as millions of 
     American workers are set to face another economic challenge 
     with the resumption of student debt repayments in October.
       Furloughed government workers ``will not receive pay until 
     the shutdown ends,'' noted High Frequency Economics in a 
     research report. ``They are likely to step back from 
     spending, at least temporarily.''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, months after Fitch Ratings downgraded 
the U.S. credit rating, a Moody's analyst wrote that a shutdown ``would 
underscore the weakness of U.S. institutional and governance strength 
relative to other AAA-rated sovereigns that we have highlighted in 
recent years.''
  Extreme MAGA Republicans are embarrassing our country internationally 
and exacerbating economic hardship at home when they openly brag about 
how they would welcome a government shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, this is the theater of the absurd. The gentleman comes 
down here and talks about the border. Once again, his bill defunds 
border security. Does he propose to secure the border through 
volunteerism?
  I am so sick of listening to the Republicans rant and rave about 
spending. Joe Biden has added $1.8 trillion to the national debt. That 
is a fact. Donald Trump, the last Republican President, added $8.2 
trillion. Trump added as much in 4 years as his predecessor did in 8 
years, and Republicans added $2 trillion to the debt with their tax 
cuts for the rich.
  Now, the so-called pro-life party has the nerve to try to cut WIC, 
the women, infants, and children program, which helps provide food to 
new moms and very young children.
  Now, let me explain this to the gentleman from Texas and to my 
Republican colleagues: Cutting funding for WIC means more malnourished 
babies. Malnourished babies end up needing expensive healthcare. Who 
pays the bill? It is Medicaid that pays. It is taxpayers who pay. In 
fact, according to USDA, every dollar spent on WIC means $3 in taxpayer 
savings.
  Madam Speaker, what kind of twisted values would make someone think 
it is a good idea to cut taxes on billionaires but a bad idea to fund 
WIC, a program that saves money, a program that helps women, infants, 
and children?
  All of these appropriations bills that are being brought to the floor 
at this last minute are so extreme that Republicans in the Senate won't 
even support them. These bills shouldn't go over to the Senate. They 
should go to a shredder.
  Republicans want to gut programs that help seniors, gut programs that 
help students, gut programs that help working people. Instead of trying 
to do anything that helps anyone, they are obsessed with banning Pride 
flags from flying at our embassies. What is wrong with them?
  This is absurd. What is happening here is not governing.
  Just so everyone is clear: All of this should have been done months 
and months ago, and doing it now, 4 days before a shutdown and having 
no plan to avoid a shutdown, is incompetence, pure and simple.
  I just saw a tweet from a reporter about conference calls that are 
going on amongst Republican Members, where Republicans are warning each 
other about getting their list of priorities straight, trying to figure 
out how you get to a deal, if you can get to a deal. They are saying we 
need some organization. You are just having those conference calls now.
  Let me just say that it is clear that my Republican friends have no 
idea at all what they are doing. It is clear they have no plan to get 
us out of this mess. My Republican friends need to move out of the way 
and let serious people on both sides of the aisle do what we have to do 
to clean up the GOP's mess and keep government funded.
  The Senate right now has come to a bipartisan compromise. That is a 
good thing. They are trying to avoid a shutdown that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle in this Chamber don't seem to think is a big 
deal. They will know it is a big deal when they shut the government 
down and their constituents start calling and complaining about not 
getting paid, about the services that are being cut. They will hear 
loud and clear from their constituents--Democrats, Independents, and 
Republicans.
  Now is time for the adults in the room to figure this out. The Senate 
has given us a way forward. We should take it.
  When my friends say that they need more time to figure all this out, 
what have they been doing? For months, what have they been doing?
  We have had enough of this nonsense. We have had enough talk about 
shutdowns. We need to work together in a bipartisan way, work in the 
way that our constituents expect us to work to get things done, not to 
shut things down, not to tear things apart, not to blow things up.
  At the end of the day, we have our policy differences. When I look at 
these appropriations bills, I can say honestly to my friends that we 
don't share the same values. I don't understand how you can gut food 
and nutrition programs. I don't even understand how you can cut border 
security. I don't get the thinking behind all of that, but that is your 
problem to work out.
  In the meantime, let's come together and do the right thing. Let's 
keep this government open.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no idea what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts was just talking about. We have four bills before us here 
in the House of Representatives, four bills that, when combined with 
the MILCON-VA bill that we passed in July, would fund upward of 75 
percent of our discretionary spending of government. That is what is on 
the floor of the House.
  The fact is, the four bills we have before us represent this body 
doing its job. The gentleman says the Senate is going to be the adults 
who save us. This is a Senate that has passed not one appropriations 
bill. This is a Senate that today dropped on the floor of

[[Page H4494]]

the Senate a bill that no one had seen 45 minutes prior to the vote, a 
bill which would continue to spend at the levels adopted last December 
that are yielding $2 trillion a year in deficit spending.
  If that represents the adults, I think I want to hang out with the 
kids because that is not the job that we are supposed to do--$2 
trillion a year of deficit spending when we are $33 trillion in debt, 
continuing to fund an administration completely at war with the well-
being of the American people and a Department of Justice weaponized 
against the people like Mark Houck, a father who wakes up with a raid 
at his home for defending his son, for exercising his free speech 
rights, completely not pursued by local authorities, taken to Federal 
court, and summarily dismissed within an hour by a jury. That is your 
FBI and Department of Justice at work.

  This is the same Department of Justice that wants to label Scott 
Smith a domestic terrorist. That is your Department of Justice at work.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say the Senate 
being adults and writing another check to that Department of Justice is 
a good use of your money.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say it is a good 
idea to continue to rack up $2 trillion in deficit spending, to borrow 
more money, to increase inflation, to devalue the dollar, to spend 
money we don't have to fund a Department of Homeland Security that 
refuses to secure the homeland.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do this while 
thousands of Americans die from fentanyl poisonings, while cartels are 
empowered, while China is empowered, while China is selling the 
printing presses and the fentanyl pills to the cartels, while thousands 
pour into Eagle Pass, while 11,000 people just the day before yesterday 
poured across into Eagle Pass, while people are in railroad cars, while 
children are dying, while children get sold into the sex trafficking 
trade, where migrants are being held for ransom so their little girl 
doesn't get raped in a stash house in Fort Worth, Texas. All of that, I 
suppose, is from the adults we have in the Senate. They want to 
continue to fund a lawless administration, exposing our people to 
danger and exposing migrants to danger, all in the false name of 
compassion.

                              {time}  1945

  Well, if that is what adults look like, count me out. I am going to 
stand up for the American people who sent me here to stand up for them.
  Madam Speaker, we are going to pass these four bills. We are going to 
work hard to do the work for the American people while the Senate can 
preen and posture with yet another swamp game by putting forward 
another continuing resolution of the status quo rather than trying to 
change this place, rather than trying to stand up for the people who 
sent us here to do something different: to reduce spending, to secure 
the border, to fund our troops at a higher level than we have ever 
funded them; a $28 billion increase for the Department of Defense while 
we undo the social engineering experiment and refocus the military on 
its mission to defend the United States.
  I am proud of these four bills. I am proud to stand up here and 
advance them forward but let me be very clear: We are going to secure 
the border of the United States.
  It will be up to Democrats to make a choice. Will they shut down this 
open border or will they shut down the government of the United States.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
  Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5110; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 209, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--209

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton

[[Page H4495]]


     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bush
     Carter (TX)
     Costa
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lucas
     Luna
     Peltola
     Smith (MO)

                          ____________________