[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 26, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4157-H4166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8774, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8771,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8752,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1316 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1316
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. 8774) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, 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. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-40 shall be considered as adopted in the
House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the
purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8774, as amended,
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 4
of this resolution.
(b) Each further 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 4 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 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 his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further 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 4 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. During consideration of H.R. 8774 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. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8774
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. 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.
8771) making appropriations for the Department of State,
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2025, 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
[[Page H4158]]
rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-39 shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived.
Sec. 7. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8771, as amended,
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 8 of this
resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 9
of this resolution.
(b) Each further 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 9 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 B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 8 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 8. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further 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 9 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. 9. During consideration of H.R. 8771 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. 10. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8771
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 11. 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.
8752) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, 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. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-38, modified by the amendment specified
in section 17 of 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 the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 12. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8752, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part C of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 13 of
this resolution, and pro forma amendments described in
section 14 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part C 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 14 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 C of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 13 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 13. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part C 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 14 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. 14. During consideration of H.R. 8752 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. 15. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8752
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 16. The Clerk shall not transmit to the Senate a
message that the House has passed H.R. 8752 until notified by
the Speaker that H.R. 2, as passed by the House on May 11,
2023, has been enacted into law.
Sec. 17. The amendment referred to in section 11 of this
resolution is as follows:
``Strike section 406 and strike section 413 and insert
SEC.___. Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth
in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and
upon determining that the needs of American businesses cannot
be satisfied during fiscal year 2025 with United States
workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform
temporary nonagricultural labor, may increase the total
number of aliens who may receive a visa under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) in such fiscal year above such
limitation by not more than the highest number of H-2B
nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker
program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were
exempt from such numerical limitation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Alford). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Neguse), 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. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. 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 Georgia?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 18. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, during consideration of H.R. 8771 pursuant to
this resolution, it shall not be in order to consider
amendment number 37 printed in part B of House Report 118-
559.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is amended.
{time} 0930
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1316, providing for
consideration of three measures.
H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2025, is to
be considered under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of
debate, equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, provides for
one motion to recommit, and makes 193 amendments in order.
H.R. 8771, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2025, is to be considered under a
structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate
[[Page H4159]]
equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, provides for one motion
to recommit, and makes 75 amendments in order.
H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2025, is to be considered under a structured rule. The rule provides
for 1 hour of debate equally controlled by the chair and ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees,
provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 61 amendments in order.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying
pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 8774, the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2025.
Mr. Speaker, our country is currently facing threats at levels we
haven't seen since World War II. However, H.R. 8774 delivers a strong
response to the situations we currently find ourselves in. This bill
provides nearly $834 billion to support our national defense and
remains consistent with the levels set in the law by the Fiscal
Responsibility Act.
Additionally, this bill rejects $18 billion of unjustified,
unnecessary, and politically motivated spending included in the
President's budget request. It redirects those resources to programs
and activities that counter the threats we are facing from hostile
actors, fosters innovation, enhances the DOD's role in combating the
fentanyl crisis, and supports servicemembers and their families.
Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party is
clear, and this bill recognizes that. It prioritizes defense articles
and services to Taiwan as well as deterrence initiatives throughout the
Indo-Pacific region. The bill modernizes our military and invests in
next-generation fighter aircraft, helicopters, and tactical combat
vehicles and submarines, ensuring our warfighters are prepared for the
threats that lie ahead.
This bill supports our ally Israel, which is under constant threat by
the terrorist group Hamas. It provides funding for the Israeli
cooperative missile defense programs, including Iron Dome, David's
Sling, and the Arrow.
Additionally, it prohibits funds to withhold the delivery of defense
articles and services from the United States to Israel, as we have seen
the Biden administration do in the past. It requires any withheld
articles to be delivered within 15 days.
This bill refocuses the Pentagon on its core mission and prohibits
funding for DEI offices and climate change executive orders, as well as
other divisive social agendas and radical policies.
Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the funding to deliver a 4.5
percent pay raise for all of our military personnel and an additional
15 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers.
The world is a safer place when America leads, and this bill ensures
we are able to do so.
Moving on to H.R. 8771, the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2025, Mr. Speaker, this bill
is another step in the right direction toward protecting our national
security, safeguarding our global economic interests, supporting our
allies and partners, and promoting freedom abroad.
This bill also supports our ally Israel and provides funding to
ensure they can defend themselves against terrorist attacks like we saw
on October 7. Additionally, it prohibits funding for UNRWA, which we
have seen support Hamas.
Mr. Speaker, the United States is facing an imminent threat on our
southern border. This legislation prohibits funds that encourage or
facilitate dangerous migrations toward the U.S.-Mexico border and
provides funding to combat the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs
that are pouring into the United States and killing innocent Americans.
Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill redirects taxpayer resources and
prohibits funding for the Green Climate Fund, the Wuhan Institute of
Virology, and any gain-of-function research in labs in adversarial
nations like China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba.
The world is a dangerous place right now, and again, Mr. Speaker, the
world is safer when America leads. This bill redirects funding from
flawed Biden administration policies that make the United States and
our allies weaker to policies that make the U.S. stronger and the world
a safer place.
Finally, on H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2025, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that what our
President is currently doing at our southern border is not working.
H.R. 8752 takes the necessary steps to combat illegal immigration and
the consequences that have come with it.
This bill provides $600 million for construction of the southern
border wall and requires Secretary Mayorkas to adhere to the law and
build physical barriers immediately.
It is pretty simple, Mr. Speaker. We are a country of laws. We need
to uphold our immigration laws. If we had done so in the last 3\1/2\
years, we wouldn't be in this position. This has placed a tremendous
burden on our already strained Border Patrol agents. This bill provides
an additional $300 million for border security technology to help them
do their jobs while also preserving funding for the 22,000 agents who
are serving on the front lines of our border crisis.
Tragically, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's failure to
protect the border has resulted in dangerous criminals in our
communities, putting Americans at risk. This bill provides $4.1 billion
for custody operations to get these criminals off our streets and $822
million to fund transportation and removal operations.
Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill focuses the Department of Homeland
Security on its core mission of ensuring a homeland that is safe,
secure, and resilient against terrorism and other potential threats.
This bill prevents the Department from carrying out its equity action
plan or advancing critical race theory. Additionally, it rejects
funding requests by the Biden administration that encourage illegal
immigration and reduces funding for programs that could enable it.
Altogether, Mr. Speaker, these three bills meet the needs of our
Nation as they currently stand. They provide for our national defense
and counter our adversaries. They support American values and
principles, work to secure our southern border and address the illegal
immigration issue Americans are fed up with, and ensure the proper use
of taxpayer dollars by requiring that funding goes toward carrying out
the core mission of the Departments.
It is simple, Mr. Speaker. These bills put the American people first.
I commend the Committee on Appropriations for the work they did to
craft these bills. I look forward to consideration of these important
pieces of legislation, and I urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as you have heard, provides
for the consideration of three partisan appropriations bills. While I
certainly agree with my colleague from Georgia regarding the myriad of
threats posed to our country, these bills fall far short of addressing
those threats.
House Republicans have, regrettably, kicked off the appropriations
season by doubling down on failed legislation that would, in effect,
harm our servicemembers, abandon our allies, cede the U.N. to our
adversaries, and withhold critical resources needed to secure our
southern border.
When it comes to global leadership and national security, House
Democrats and House Republicans have a very different approach. House
Republicans' Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, H.R. 8771, ultimately revives the doomed
isolationism of the early 20th century.
Across the globe, America's adversaries threaten the peace and
prosperity of the free world. With wars in the Middle East and Europe
and humanitarian crises on nearly every continent, the world needs
American leadership.
How do House Republicans respond? They respond by introducing a bill
that cuts international disaster assistance
[[Page H4160]]
programs by $1.3 billion, cuts international financial institutions by
$583 million, and cuts $362 million from programs to improve maternal
and child health and fight infectious diseases. By cutting funding,
ultimately, for the United Nations and other multilateral investments,
this bill is a reversal of our country's historic position among the
nations where we stand as a beacon for democracy and liberty.
Then we have H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2025. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle claim that this bill will secure our border. It will not. The
bill falls short of our responsibility to provide for the safety and
security of Americans. Ultimately, it disinvests, decreases funding,
for a variety of critical programs designed to prevent threats from
terrorists, transnational criminals, foreign adversaries, and violent
extremists.
My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, do not want to secure the border. How do
we know that? Because they had a chance to do precisely that just a few
short months ago. They had a chance to do that with the Senate's
bipartisan border plan. What did House Republicans do instead? They
ensured that that bipartisan deal never even received a vote at the
behest of their leader, former President Trump.
The proposal under consideration this week that Republicans have put
on the floor cuts the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office by
$48 million. It cuts the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by
$10.4 million.
Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why would House Republicans put a bill on
the floor that cuts Federal law enforcement training programs? It is a
fair question.
The bill includes no funds for targeted violence and terrorism
prevention grants and the shelter and services program. It cuts family
reunification efforts by $33.9 million.
At bottom, Mr. Speaker, this is another wasted opportunity, in my
view, for House Republicans to address what they say is a top priority:
border security.
Finally, the rule includes H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act. This bill is extreme even by House Republican
standards. Usually, in my experience, it has been the Rules Committee
that has been responsible for, for lack of a better phrase, messing up
these massive bipartisan efforts, at least during the 118th Congress
under Republican control, but my colleagues in the majority on the
Rules Committee didn't even get the opportunity to do that with respect
to this bill because it came out of committee as a terrible piece of
legislation.
It divides the country. It undermines national security. It includes
provisions that fail to support service personnel. The bill cuts
civilian positions at a time when the Department is struggling to meet
readiness goals. A number of extreme policy riders that have been
included within the bill target reproductive care for women, the LGBTQ
community, and more. Finally, it fails to invest in a number of
different important programs critical to our national security.
It is a bill, unfortunately, detached from reality, and of course the
elephant in the room, what we all know to be true, is that it has no
chance of becoming law.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. These three bills that we are
considering this week have no chance of becoming law. The rest of this
is theater.
What I would implore my colleagues to do is come back to the
negotiating table. Let's negotiate and compromise in good faith and
abandon this approach that they have unfortunately taken for the better
part of the last 19 months in the 118th Congress, which has ultimately
led to this Congress being the least productive in 100 years, in the
history of this House.
Let's pursue solutions, not stunts.
I encourage my colleagues to perhaps follow that admonition. I
suspect they won't, but hope springs eternal that they will get back to
working with us so that we can get back to governing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0945
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Americans want the border
secure. House Republicans want the border secure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the underlying
bills: H.R. 8771, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act; H.R. 8752, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act; and H.R. 8774, the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act. Each of these bills, Mr. Speaker, serves an
important role in ensuring our Nation's defense while also holding the
Federal agencies and the Biden administration accountable to the
American public.
These bills eliminate funding for unnecessary and unjustified Federal
programs, saving taxpayers' money in the process. At the same time,
these bills will work to secure the southern border, counter
threatening activity by the People's Republic of China, and enhance the
ability of the Federal Government to combat the flow of fentanyl and
other illegal drugs crossing our borders, while providing a 4.5 percent
pay increase to all military personnel, including, very importantly, a
15 percent increase in pay for junior enlisted servicemembers.
Importantly, these bills narrow their scope to what appropriations
bills are intended to do, fund the core missions of Federal agencies
and not some fanciful wish list.
To this end, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act allocates over $12 billion below the President's
budget request while the Defense Appropriations Act receives a modest 1
percent discretional allocation increase in accordance with the Fiscal
Responsibility Act signed into law last year.
For much the same reason as noted above, I expect that Members across
the aisle may find fault with these bills. Certainly, we welcome their
remarks and welcome the debate. However, I will offer a few points on
the matter.
Over 10,000 Member submissions were considered in the appropriations
process this year. Of this, many were incorporated into the base bills.
These measures serve all of our districts and, equally, our Nation as
we look to ensure our security and prosperity over the coming years.
The world has become increasingly dangerous. Many days, we are living
literally on a knife's edge. One simple miscalculation could plunge us
into some unimaginable scenario. More than 4 years ago, when President
Biden took office, it wasn't necessarily this way, but during the years
of the Biden administration, he has failed to reverse the Nation's
reckless spending and to prioritize those who pay for the bills,
everyday American taxpayers, and those who selflessly serve our Nation.
These bills serve to make that very necessary adjustment.
Regarding the second point, Mr. Speaker, President Biden has signed
over 60 executive orders that have eroded border security since taking
office. Republicans have repeatedly sounded the alarm on how dangerous
these actions are for Americans and national security. Beyond the
serious threat of terrorism, American lives have been cut short by
criminal illegal immigrants.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, lives have been cut short by illegal
immigrants on this administration's watch.
We hear consistently about someone presenting to the border saying
they have got credible fear if they return to their home country. They
are granted asylum. They are essentially given a free card into this
country.
What about Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, Alex Wise,
Jr., Lizbeth Medina, Melissa Powell, Riordan Powell, and Travis Wolfe?
These are just a few of the individuals whose lives have been stolen by
this crisis. Where was their protection from credible fear? These are
United States citizens who have been lost because of the actions the
President has taken at the southern border.
I thank the Appropriations Committee for working so hard on getting
these bills ready for us. It has been an
[[Page H4161]]
enormous amount of work. I thank the underlying committees who provided
the work for us to review in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule and the bills on the floor.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The chairman said quite a bit there for me to respond to. I simply
say with respect to the deficit, here is an article from just 2 days
ago, June 24, 2024, in Axios. The headline reads: ``Trump ran up
national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis.'' I will just read
the first sentence. ``Former President Trump ran up the national debt
by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis
of their fiscal track records.'' Facts are facts, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the
previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule that
would bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore the nationwide right
to abortion care.
This Monday was the 2-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, a
decision that left millions of women without the reproductive rights
and protections provided in Roe v. Wade for decades.
It is clear the far right won't stop there. Not only do the bills in
this rule, the rule we are considering today, include restrictions on
care for our servicemembers, restrictions on care for women and
families abroad, restrictions on funding to end maternal deaths, but
also, just for the record, an amendment was offered by one of my
Republican colleagues to ban IVF treatments for servicemembers.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. As States across our country create
confusion and chaos by enacting Republican policies that I have
described, House Democrats are fighting to protect our freedoms. H.R.
12, the Women's Health Protection Act, would ensure that fundamental
reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is available across
the country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), a friend and
colleague who has been a national leader on this issue, among many
others.
Ms. TOKUDA. Mr. Speaker, 48 years ago, a teenage girl about to enter
her senior year in high school made a very difficult and personal
choice. She was young and didn't come from any money. Her boyfriend was
just a year older and preferred surfing over working. Family and
friends all had opinions on what she should do. Yes, she was pushed to
have an abortion, but the girl knew that what happened to her body was
her choice.
I stand before you today as my mother's choice, a right she fully
exercised, knowing that the decision whether to have a baby was hers
and hers alone.
Two years ago, with the Dobbs decision, six unelected, conservative
Justices robbed women of their basic human right to make decisions, to
make choices about their family, their relationships, and their bodily
autonomy. They reversed half a century of legal precedent and opened
the door for far-right politicians to ban, restrict, and interfere with
a woman's right to have an abortion and access reproductive care.
We know that we are awaiting yet another decision from the Supreme
Court on whether women can get lifesaving abortion care over the
extreme abortion bans being enacted across our country.
Today, we see the harmful and even deadly impacts of this reckless
and irresponsible decision. One estimate projected that over 171,000
women were forced to cross State lines for abortion care last year,
some even crossing the ocean to my home State of Hawaii. While many of
these women are being forced to leave the red State that they live in
to access the healthcare that they need, Republicans just won't stop.
Earlier this year, our colleagues on the Republican Study Committee
endorsed a nationwide ban on abortion with zero exceptions. That cruel
vision is reflected in the dangerous and inhumane policy riders the
Republicans have inserted into our government spending bills, including
those that would be considered under this rule.
Democrats have pushed back against this relentless assault on women
across the country by introducing H.R. 12, the Women's Health
Protection Act. This bill would reinstate the constitutional
protections to privacy and bodily autonomy that Roe v. Wade provided
and further prevent governments from interfering with access to
abortion care and reproductive health services in the future.
Hawaii, which I am very proud to represent here in these Halls, was
at the forefront of protecting a woman's right to choose by being the
very first State to legalize abortion. Since then, we have vigilantly
and will continue to fight to protect those rights we fought so hard
for over 50 years ago.
That is why I stand before you today. I am here to call on my
colleagues to stand with us in firmly rejecting these harmful attacks
on women, the girls and women in all of our lives.
We deserve a choice. I was once a choice. I know my mother never
would have imagined that her granddaughters would be living in a world
where they had fewer rights, fewer choices, than she did.
My nieces deserve the right to make choices for themselves about when
to start a family and what happens to their bodies.
For my nieces, for all of our nieces, for all of the girls and women
of our country, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Our national debt is $35 trillion. The current deficit is $2.5
trillion. We are not at war, and we are not in the middle of a
healthcare emergency.
I will admit the national debt went up a lot during COVID. We did a
lot of things very quickly to help the American citizens. Some of that
spending was necessary and all of that spending was bipartisan, unlike
what the Democrats did with what they call the Inflation Reduction Act
and the American Rescue Plan where they spent $3 trillion without a
single Republican vote and didn't even put the money through the
appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out and agree with the gentleman
from Georgia that in all that spending that is being bemoaned by our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle by the previous
administration, show me the opposition from our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. I will wait.
The truth is that was a bipartisan spendathon. Some of us opposed a
good chunk of it, but it was bipartisan.
The reality here is we have legislation before us that is designed to
constrain spending in a world in which we are $35 trillion in debt and
in which we have $1.1 trillion in interest, more on interest than we
are spending on the entire spending of the national defense. It is a
world in which we are racking up another trillion dollars in debt every
2 or 3 months. This is an unsustainable course that we are taking, and
this is what is definitively occurring with the rampant support of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
What we have also done is put forward legislation to enact policy
changes, because the power of the purse, Article I, is supposed to be
used by Congress in order to do what is necessary to constrain an out-
of-control executive branch.
The truth is that on June 13, 2024, an illegal alien from El Salvador
raped a 13-year-old girl at machete point while recording it in Queens,
New York. The illegal alien was released from the border in June of
2021.
On June 14, 2024, an illegal alien from El Salvador was charged with
the rape and murder of Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five. He
illegally crossed the southern border in February of 2023 as a got-
away.
That is not the first instance in Maryland. Kayla Hamilton was raped
and murdered in 2022 by an illegal
[[Page H4162]]
alien. Her mom is begging for this Congress to stand up against the
Biden administration to stop doing what is unconscionable with open
borders that are endangering the American people.
On June 17, 2024, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was murdered by two
illegal aliens from Venezuela in my home State in Houston, Texas.
On May 14, 2024, an illegal alien from Honduras who was released from
the border in April of 2022, under this administration, pleaded guilty
to third-degree sexual abuse of a 12-year-old girl in Waterloo, Iowa.
I could go on and on. I have pages and pages. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle want to hide behind legislation which even the
current President couldn't stand behind when he said he could.
You know how we know that? Because he went to the microphone saying
that he now magically has the power for an executive order, saying that
when we have 2,500, we will set in effect the stop at the border. When
the bill was 5,000, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle knew
it was all a sham. They know it is all a cover vote. That is the truth.
{time} 1000
Mr. Speaker, we have legislation here that would have Congress step
in front of an out-of-control executive branch to secure the border of
the United States. It is not unprecedented to hold a bill at the desk.
We have done it before, and we should do it because we should use the
power of the purse to stop an administration that is endangering the
American people and the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable what this administration
is doing. It is unconscionable what they are doing to the Department of
Defense. It is unconscionable that they turned it into a woke social
engineering experiment that is more concerned about transgender
surgeries and pushing a radical agenda than ensuring that we have the
military that is necessary to defend the United States of America.
There is no wonder that recruiting levels are down. There is no
wonder that we have a morale problem at the Pentagon.
This legislation is designed specifically to refocus our military on
doing its job, which is exactly what the American people want us to do:
secure the United States, secure our border, and secure us without
giving money to organizations all around the world.
I am proud that we restrict funding of the ICC, of the ICJ, and of
UNRWA. UNRWA, by the way, which my Democratic colleagues want to
continue to support, was, in fact, funding and putting people on the
ground, literally. They were killing our friends in Israel.
This bill is a responsible effort to restrain an administration that
is endangering the American people, and I am proud to support it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can one argue that they
would like to secure the border by advocating for the passage of a bill
that they claim will fund border operations and then include in that
bill a provision that prevents it from ever being considered by the
Senate unless the Senate does its bidding and passes a completely
separate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the
Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. America. Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful sound it
is to just utter the name of this great country of ours. Americans do
not share a common ancestry or common religion, but we are bound
together by something that is bigger than us: the ideals of freedom and
democracy. Our belief and faith in democracy, and the freedoms it
provides, unite us, and it strengthens us.
Yet, today's extreme Republican appropriations bills pit Americans
against each other. They insert partisan culture wars into what should
be funding to protect Americans from foreign wars. Republican culture
wars undermine our unity. Their culture wars undermine our democracy,
our security, and our freedom. Their culture wars limit our ability to
see each other as something bigger than our individual selves, States,
or party affiliation.
Sometimes it is hard to picture democracy, but we can feel it. We can
feel it when we see those soldiers whom we celebrated recently because
they crossed the channel and stormed Normandy with salt and fear in
their mouths. We can see it when we imagine the sand that has blown
around and seeped into the pores of our servicemen and -women in the
Middle East. They were all fighting for democracy. That is what it
feels like.
However, if this Republican Defense appropriations bill passes, then
many of our brave servicewomen who tasted that sand would lose their
own reproductive health freedoms even as they fight for American
freedom.
These extreme Republican bills would take away the freedoms of LGBTQ
servicemembers to be themselves, even as they fight for American
freedoms in hostile countries.
That is not all. Republicans have cut funding to prepare our military
for the dangers of climate change. Unlike the Republicans, Americans
know climate change exists because we smell it in the wildfires that
burn and the heat waves that kill. We can see it in the rising sea- and
floodwaters that threaten our bases and our military readiness.
Nevertheless, Republicans put our military at risk and give up
strategic military advantage when they cut climate funding in these
bills.
Meanwhile, the Republican Homeland Security appropriations bill cuts
$1.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and they cut National
Guard counter-drug interdiction funding.
Let me say that again: Republicans are proposing cuts to border
protection funding from current levels. They are proposing, instead, a
medieval form of defense for our country, a Trumpian wall, that doesn't
do anything to stop the fentanyl streaming into our borders from China
to kill our youth.
Republicans followed Trump when they killed the border security bill
that existed. They do not care to protect us. They care about those
partisan culture wars.
Finally, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
appropriations bill cuts all funding for vital United Nations
humanitarian assistance programs that help women and children.
What values do we hold and what American values do we send abroad
when we turn our back on women and children across the world?
Indeed, we increase instability, and we increase the flow of
migration when we cut this kind of funding.
The Republican culture wars in these bills don't help our
constituents, and they harm our country at home and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind
everybody that H.R. 8752 provides $600 million for construction of the
southern border wall. That is the cheapest and most effective way to
stop illegal immigration. If President Biden wanted to stop about 80
percent of it right now, then he could simply put the remain in Mexico
policies back in place that were actually working, but that would be an
acknowledgement that President Trump was right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Langworthy).
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, the measures under the rule before us
today are about securing our Nation, securing our borders, and standing
up to our adversaries who would love nothing more than to do us harm.
This week, House Republicans will address the ongoing national security
crisis by considering three critical appropriations bills: the fiscal
year 2025 Department Homeland Security Appropriations Act, the fiscal
year 2025 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and the fiscal year
2025 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act. These bills aim to secure our borders, bolster our national
defense, and strengthen our global standing against our adversaries.
Under the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we have
funding for actual border security, something my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have time and again
[[Page H4163]]
refused to support. This bill includes funding for 22,000 additional
Border Patrol agents and $600 million for the construction of the
southern border wall.
My own district has had a front row seat for this administration's
disastrous border policies. Not only has the Biden border policy,
coupled with New York State's sanctuary policies, allowed for a flood
of illegal immigrants into our cities, towns, and communities, but our
northern border has seen a surge of illegal crossings like never
before. I have talked to the Buffalo Sector Border Patrol, and I know
firsthand that these agents need Congress to have their backs and give
them the tools they need to do their job safely and effectively.
Mr. Speaker, 143 individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list have
been apprehended on our northern border. That is twice as many as have
been apprehended on the southern border, and that is just the ones who
have been caught.
This administration's open-border policies have turned every State
into a border State and every town into a border town, jeopardizing the
safety and security of every American.
The Homeland Security bill also provides $822 million for
transportation and removal operations and $300 million for border
security technology, all essential for removing dangerous criminals
from our country and securing our borders.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. It is time to secure our borders,
support our allies, and put American interests and safety first.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
critical legislation that it brings forward.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Scott to be an intellectually
honest debater and Member, and I wonder maybe perhaps he will indulge
me in a bit of a colloquy because I take him at his word that he
believes that we have a crisis on the southern border.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of a colloquy.
That is the way you have described it, Mr. Scott, is that right?
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I think it is very obvious to every
American.
Mr. NEGUSE. Do you honestly believe that this homeland appropriations
bill that we are considering, the funding bill, that it would
ameliorate that crisis?
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I think that if you build a border wall,
you solve a tremendous amount of the problems at the border.
Moreover, if President Biden cared and wanted to do something about
it, he could simply put remain in Mexico back in place.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Scott, I am asking you about the bill we are
considering here today. It is the bill that you are championing here on
the floor, the homeland appropriations bill. I take it you believe in
this bill.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I absolutely believe that it will help
secure the southern border. There is $100 million in funding for a
physical barrier. That is the cheapest and most effective way to do it.
The President right now, President Joe Biden right now could put remain
in Mexico back in place and stop 70 to 80 percent of it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Scott, if that is the case, and if you feel so
passionate about the funding allocations in this bill, then why will
the bill be held hostage the moment it passes this Chamber?
If this bill passes the House tomorrow, Mr. Scott, when will this
bill be sent to the United States Senate?
The next day, the next week, the next month, or the next year?
Reclaiming my time, I ask because under the provisions of this bill,
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have written that the homeland
appropriations bill will go nowhere until the United States Senate
passes a completely different and separate bill that has only garnered
less than one-third of support from the United States.
It makes no sense, and it is nonsensical to pass a funding bill for
homeland security, for Border Patrol, for TSA, and for FEMA, and then
to hold that bill hostage and not allow the Senate to take it up. Any
Member who votes for this appropriation bill is doing precisely that.
It is nonsensical.
I heard another one of my colleagues come to the floor and defend
this practice. It is intellectually disingenuous to suggest that this
is normal practice of the House.
Let me read you a quote, Mr. Speaker: ``This cheapens the process,
and I can't believe we are doing this again.'' Let me repeat: ``This
cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.''
Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a Republican
Congressman, Tom Massie, yesterday, in the Rules Committee who was
honest in his criticism of the approach that House Republicans are
taking by continuing to put this gimmick provision within the rule.
If the other side wants to take up a debate about policy with respect
to our southern border, then let's have the debate. Don't hold hostage
compensation for Border Patrol and Federal employees securing our
border and keeping our communities safe. That is not the way to govern.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
the State of Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
Mr. AMO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, to my Republican colleagues, I ask the question: Why
choose hate?
Why use our budget to attack the LGBTQ community?
We should be coming together to support America's commitment abroad.
Instead, Republicans are pushing horrific bills that treat LGBTQ people
as less than their fellow Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the GOP majority is bent on restricting the
fundamental freedoms of the LGBTQ community, but they refuse to even
debate my amendment on the House floor.
Again, why are you choosing hate?
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is simple. It would remove bigoted,
homophobic, and partisan riders from the State and Foreign Operations
bill. It would strip out provisions that are cruel and callous on our
neighbors at home and to those in the LGBTQ community abroad.
My amendment advances the work of the Equality Caucus and the legacy
of my predecessor, Congressman David Cicilline.
Our budget is a statement of values. Our budget is a statement of
values, and Republicans are, once again, showing us that they value a
hate-filled agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
{time} 1015
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
My colleague from Colorado didn't give me a chance to answer the
question, but the bottom line is, with the proper policies in place,
you don't have to spend as much money.
H.R. 2 would secure the border, and if H.R. 2 were signed into law,
you might actually be able to reduce the spending under this
appropriations measure, but I am not positive about that. I believe if
H.R. 2 were the law, the border would be secure. We would be removing
people who are violent criminals who are illegally in this country.
You have to admit that a lot of these other countries have been very
smart about emptying the worst of their society into the United States
of America. I am not saying that everybody who comes here illegally is
a bad person, but I am saying the leaderships of countries are sending
the worst of their country into America. It has to be stopped.
If the policies of H.R. 2 were put in place, then you could actually
reduce the spending. $35 trillion in debt, and $2\1/2\ trillion
deficit--yes, we had deficits under President Trump. We did things like
the Farmers to Families Food Box Program. In very rapid time, we bought
crops like corn from farmers, who I personally know, because they
didn't have anybody to sell to. We actually gave it to Americans who
would have starved if we hadn't done some of those things during the
COVID emergency.
We are not in a healthcare emergency. We are not at war. President
Biden is still running a $2\1/2\ trillion deficit for the year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphasize the importance of
the appropriations bills before us.
[[Page H4164]]
H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2025, funds
a 19.5 percent pay raise for our troops. I was honored to be on the
Quality of Life Panel under the direction of General Don Bacon. Look,
our troops need this raise. It is long overdue. It ensures combat
readiness. It modernizes our military to face future challenges.
Critically, for my district, which is home to Whiteman Air Force
Base, this legislation ensures that we fully fund the B-2 mission,
keeping it lethal and ready against China, and the B-21 program that is
now being built out in Palmdale, California. It will also support the
much-needed modernization of our nuclear triad, Mr. Speaker.
H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2025, is crucial and critical for securing our southern border,
enhancing national security, and countering threats from Communist
China. It provides substantial funding for Border Patrol agents, border
security technology, and physical barriers, all while rejecting
wasteful spending and unnecessary programs.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion on the other side about
the Republicans' desire to secure the border. Let me be clear, Mr.
Speaker, we made our voices known, the voices of our constituents, that
we want a secure border. That is why, more than a year ago, we passed
H.R. 2, the Secure Border Act of 2023.
It has been sitting across the hallway here on Chuck Schumer's desk
since May of last year. They have done nothing with it.
It would restore remain in Mexico. It would end the catch and release
program. It would finish the wall. It would keep out the rapists, the
killers, the drug dealers, and the people who are terrorizing our very
citizens all because of this administration throwing the doors wide
open and welcoming people who do not belong in our Nation.
I am tired of the gaslighting, Mr. Speaker. I am tired of the lies to
the American people, the deception, the obfuscation. Secure the border
now.
These bills are vital for maintaining America's security and
advancing our strategic interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these appropriations
bills.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend and
colleague from Colorado if he has additional speakers or if he is
prepared to close.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I will deliver prior to
closing, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by my colleague from
Missouri, there is certainly no confusion on our side of the aisle, no
confusion whatsoever. Republicans have said that they would like to
address the crisis on our southern border, and they tanked a bipartisan
border bill that was negotiated by some of the more prominent
conservative members of the Senate Republican Conference. They did that
at the behest of the former President.
Now, House Republicans have asked the House to consider and to pass
an appropriations bill but have decided they will take their own
appropriations bill hostage, as they did a year ago, unless and until
the Senate passes a different piece of legislation. That piece of
legislation, as the gentleman knows, could not get majority support
from the Senate Republican Conference.
By way of background, yes, House Republicans have a majority, a
dwindling majority, here in the House of Representatives. They are in
the minority in the United States Senate. Of course, as the gentleman
knows, they do not have a Republican President in the White House. So,
compromise and thoughtful negotiation will be required to get anything
done in this Congress. Holding your own bill hostage until the Senate
passes a separate bill is not that.
What my friend from Georgia fails to mention as he talks about if and
when the Senate may pass H.R. 2, which I understand he is very
passionate about, is that Border Patrol agents will go unpaid in the
meantime. TSA agents will go unpaid in the meantime.
That is my objection. My objection is to the process that House
Republicans have created and crafted, and it is a bipartisan objection.
I am not the only one making it.
As I said, Representative Massie, I thought, articulated well the
concerns with respect to this approach. He and I don't agree on a lot,
but we certainly agree on this. A gimmick like this that holds a bill
of this consequence hostage does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the question on the minds of the American
people, certainly the question on my mind, is: Why do we go through
this same partisan process with every major piece of legislation? Why
do House Republican leaders force us to go through 6 months of
theatrics before we pass the final bipartisan funding bills?
We know how this story ends. It is literally always this same plot.
Act one, Members of Congress engage in a bipartisan process and work
through proposed legislation in their respective subcommittees. Act
two, the committee holds a markup. In many cases, those bills retain
bipartisan support. Then, act three, the bills make their way to the
Rules Committee, where chaos unfolds. Enter all the partisan policy
riders, the late-night, closed-door meetings, the usual Republican in-
fighting, and so forth. This same process has resulted in Republican
leadership having to rely on votes from House Democrats to govern at
every turn.
Just so we are clear, House Democrats ensured that the U.S. didn't
default on its debt last year. House Democrats kept the government
funded. House Democrats carried the vote for the fiscal year 2024 NDAA.
House Democrats got the national security supplemental to the
President's desk.
It is clear to me and all those watching that House Democrats remain
committed to governing, and we will continue to do so because our
communities deserve and demand it. We will stand firm against
legislation that would harm American citizens, our global standing, and
the servicemembers who sacrifice everything to protect us.
In the end, the reality is that this institution will rely once again
on the strong, principled leadership of Leader Jeffries, Ranking Member
DeLauro, and the other four corners to put together a sensible deal.
It is unfortunate that we are wasting valuable time on these bills
instead of engaging in a bipartisan process from the start. Again, I
urge my Republican colleagues to get serious about this government
funding process.
The far right is clearly putting us again, Mr. Speaker, on a path
toward yet another government shutdown showdown in September. It is
what they want. It is what they are driving us toward. My Republican
colleagues have a chance, an opportunity, to prevent that. I urge them
to take it. They can do that by opposing the previous question, the
rule, and the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, our recollections of the last couple of years are a
little different. I remember Senate Democrats, without a single
Republican vote, adopting what they call the Inflation Reduction Act,
which spurred inflation inside the United States of America. I remember
them passing what they refer to as the American Rescue Plan, which
spurred inflation inside the United States of America. Those two pieces
of legislation spent better than $3 trillion without a single
Republican vote.
I then remember, in December, the Senate passed an omnibus bill. Yes,
there were a few Republicans who voted with every Democrat to pass that
omnibus bill. What the Senate did, with the support of the President of
the United States, is when they spent all of that money, they
intentionally did not raise the national debt to pay for all the
spending that they did, where, in some cases, Democrats were
[[Page H4165]]
100 percent of the votes, and in others, they were probably 97, 98
percent of the votes. That was done for political reasons, to put
Republicans in a bad position.
Then, under Speaker McCarthy, the country watched as Joe Biden
laughed and said House Republicans are going to destroy the economy by
not raising the national debt to pay for all the spending that the
Democrats did, and Speaker McCarthy actually got it done. He actually
got it done. I voted for it. I didn't vote for all the spending, but I
had to vote for the debt limit increase. Actually, there were some
spending reductions in there.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, one of the agreements was that President
Biden would no longer pay off student debt. Public funds would no
longer be used to pay off student debt. What did the President of the
United States do? As soon as the agreement is signed, as soon as the
debt limit is raised, he turned around and started doing exactly what
he said he wouldn't do. Bipartisanship is very hard when you have a
President who doesn't do what he says he is going to do, and he is a
member of the other party.
One last thing before I close. Republicans adopted the continuing
resolution to keep the government open. The payback that Speaker
McCarthy got for adopting that continuing resolution is that every
member of the Democratic Party voted with about six members of the
Republican Party to remove him from office. So, let's not pretend like
when Republicans do what it takes to keep the government open and to
keep the government from going into default that our leadership team
doesn't pay a price for it.
You all have done things that have never been done in the history of
the country. You have provided 95 percent of the votes to do things
that have never been done in modern times--really, in the history of
the country.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has the ability to advance 3 of the
12 annual appropriations bills. These bills fund programs and policies
that put the interests of the American people first and prioritize the
core missions of the departments they fund.
They put the mission ahead of the agenda. They provide for our
national defense, counter our adversaries, and empower our
servicemembers who answer the call to defend our country. They support
our allies around the world and prohibit funds for international
organizations that seek to undercut the interests of the United States
and our allies.
They provide critical funding to defend our southern border and
prohibit funding for programs and agendas that have distracted from
this goal and led to the immigration crisis that we currently face as a
country.
These are good bills, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1316 Offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 18. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 19. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia: Mr. 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. NEGUSE. Mr. 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, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188,
nays 152, not voting 92, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
YEAS--188
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
James
Johnson (LA)
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)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--152
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Budzinski
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crockett
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Fletcher
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia, Robert
Gonzalez, Vicente
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Houlahan
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nickel
Norcross
Omar
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Pingree
Pocan
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schneider
Scholten
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Wild
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--92
Adams
Balint
Barragan
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bowman
Brownley
Bush
Cammack
Caraveo
Casar
Case
Cleaver
Cline
Craig
Crow
Curtis
Davidson
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeSaulnier
Donalds
Espaillat
Evans
Finstad
Foster
Gaetz
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Granger
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Greene (GA)
Grijalva
Higgins (LA)
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
[[Page H4166]]
Hoyle (OR)
Hunt
Jackson (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
LaMalfa
Lesko
Luna
Magaziner
McClintock
McHenry
Meeks
Molinaro
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy
Neguse
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Rodgers (WA)
Ruiz
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrier
Sorensen
Soto
Stauber
Steube
Tiffany
Tlaib
Tokuda
Trone
Van Orden
Waltz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
{time} 1052
Ms. KUSTER, Messrs. JACKSON of North Carolina, and SUOZZI changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. YAKYM and GARBARINO changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was talking on the floor and did
not vote. I was not paying attention. Had I been present, I would have
voted YEA on Roll Call No. 283.
Stated against:
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, the vote closed before 92 members could get
in the chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call
No. 283.
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, due to road closures I missed
the vote on the previous question on H. Res. 1316. Had I been present,
I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the vote closed before 92 members
voted. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the vote was closed before 92 members could
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted NAY, but the vote was
closed as I was approaching the entry to the House floor. Had I been
present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Vote was closed before 92 members could
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted Nay on
Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes, but had I
been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I missed the first vote in the 10:30 am
vote series on the Motion Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res.
1316. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283,
the Motion Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 1316.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I missed a recorded vote on On Ordering the
Previous Question for H. Res. 1316. Had I been present, I would have
voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY
on Roll Call No. 283.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to vote
today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283,
on ordering the previous question for H. Res. 1316.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The question is on
the resolution, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________