[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.

                          ____________________