Further Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2023

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1518 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1518, providing for consideration of four measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of S. 3905 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and a motion to commit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4003 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a motion to commit.

Fourth, the rule provides for consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 1437. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment with a House amendment and provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule also deems passage of a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2617 with a House amendment.

The rule further deems passage of H. Con. Res. 124 and H. Res. 1516.

Lastly, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from December 12 to December 15. The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on December 12 may be postponed through December 15.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of the 117th Congress, we are working this week to pass legislation that deserves to make it across the finish line before the end of the year.

First, the VA Employee Fairness Act. The healthcare workers at VA medical centers are exceptional at what they do serving our veterans. Many of them are veterans themselves. They deserve the same rights as their counterparts outside of the VA system to collectively bargain.

In today's world, the balance of power is disproportionately skewed towards employers over employees.

As a former union member and a small business owner myself, and as the current chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions subcommittee, I can think of no better way to honor these workers and the people they serve, who we all respect and honor, than to provide them the tools to empower them to have a voice in this important American workplace.

From our national security to the regulation of prescription drugs, the Federal Government relies on services of contractors and consultants to provide for the American people. It is critical that we know that these contractors are working in the best interest of the American people.

Unfortunately, the current Federal acquisition process allows bad actors to slip through the cracks without disclosing their potential conflicts of interest.

As a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I am proud of

the work that the committee has done to investigate McKinsey & Company for this very reason. This contractor--one of the oldest and most prestigious consulting firms in the world--was advising the FDA on the safety and efficacy of prescription pain medications at the same time the very same consultants were also advising Purdue Pharma on how to ``turbocharge'' sales of OxyContin, a major driver of the opioid epidemic.

While the McKinsey scandal shined a light on organizational conflicts of interest, the issue itself is not new. The Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would require Federal contractors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before they are awarded a Federal contract to ensure they are effectively serving the taxpayers. In the Senate it was bipartisan, and it should pass without objection and without delay.

Also included in today's rule is the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act, which would direct the Department of Justice to develop trainings on alternatives to the use of force and safely to respond to an individual experiencing a mental health, behavioral health, or suicidal crisis. We shouldn't even have to be including this bill in the rule, but unfortunately, partisan politics caused it to need to be reconsidered this week.

On this topic, I am proud that the district I represent is leading the way with an initiative we call A3, anyone, anywhere, anytime. This program connects people in need of mental health support that is outside the police system to help respond to the emergency while simultaneously allowing the police to focus on more appropriate police matters.

This was a long, developed partnership between our behavioral health departments and our local law enforcement, which support it very strongly, and is working to protect the public.

Finally, the rule includes a 1-week continuing resolution. Appropriators are hard at work to come to a year-long agreement over spending, and they need an extra week to finalize it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity this week to make transformative changes with these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an ABC news piece titled: ``Lawmakers aim to strengthen transparency in the lucrative--and murky--Federal contracting process.''

[From ABC News]

Lawmakers Aim To Strengthen Transparency in the Lucrative--and Murky--

Federal, Contracting Process

(By Soo Rin Kim)

A bipartisan coalition of senators introduced legislation

on Monday meant to improve transparency in the highly

competitive and notoriously murky federal contracting

process, taking aim at companies that accept lucrative work

from government agencies without having to disclose potential

conflicts of interest

The bill, called the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of

Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would seek to mitigate

conflict-of-interest concerns by forcing contractors to

``disclose other parts of their business that conflict with

the work they are bidding to perform for the government,''

according to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., chairman of the

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

``If we don't know whether [federal contractors] are

serving other, potentially conflicting interest, we can't be

confident that Americans are getting exactly what they pay

for,'' said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a cosponsor of the

bill.

For many American companies, federal contracts represent a

crucial source of revenue, as well as visibility and

credibility. Firms from every major business sector compete

for this work, and winners often execute their end of the

agreement while pursuing outside business opportunities--

which sometime overlap with their frederal contracts.

While existing rules stipulate that government agencies

assess potential conflicts of interest before determining

contract winners, watchdogs say the process remains opaque.

``Based on current federal contract regulations, agencies

cannot always discern whether government contractors have

business relationships with foreign governments and private

entities that could create a conflict of interest,'' said

Noah Bookbinder, president of the nonprofit government

watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the government ethics

watchdog Project on Government Oversight, warned that

``without more guidance, organizational conflicts of interest

can result in unfair competitive advantages and biased

contract awards--both of which compromise the impartiality of

the federal government and the integrity of the contracting

process.''

In a press release announcing the new legislation,

lawmakers cited reporting in ProPublica that raised conflict-

of-interest questions about consulting giant McKinsey &

Company's recent work for the Food and Drug Administration.

ProPublica reported that in at least one FDA contract,

McKinsey

allegedly failed to disclose its conflicts of interest with

corporate pharmaceutical clients despite its contract with

the agency obligating the firm to do so.

According to documents obtained by ProPublica, McKinsey

allegedly advised the FDA's drug-regulation division for more

than a decade while simultaneously accepting work from major

pharmaceutical companies. In some cases, according to

ProPublica, McKinsey helped those clients navigate FDA

regulations while advising the FDA on how to strengthen

regulations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., said McKinsey's handling of its

work with the FDA demonstrates ``the danger that conflicts of

interest can pose in government contracting.''

``Our bipartisan bill would help ensure that companies that

enter into a contract with the government are acting in the

best interest of the American people,'' Hassan said.

McKinsey spokesperson Neil Grace told ABC News that

McKinsey's consulting work with pharmaceutical companies

``did not create a conflict of interest'' for the firm's work

with the FDA because it ``has not advised the FDA on

regulatory policy or on specific pharmaceutical products.''

Instead, said Grace, McKinsey's work for the agency ``focused

on administrative and operational topics, including

improvements to organizational structures, business processes

and technology.''

``Given the absence of a conflict of interest, there was no

requirement for any McKinsey disclosure,'' Grace said. ``That

said, McKinsey's proposals to the FDA frequently mentioned

the company's and personnel's experience with the

pharmaceutical industry, making the FDA aware of this aspect

of McKinsey's work in the field.''

Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa joined Peters,

Grassley, and Hassan in sponsoring the federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, conflicts of interest are not a new issue, but it is clear that more needs to be done by this Congress. The American people ought to have faith that their tax dollars are being spent wisely on contractors who are working in their best interest. This bill will increase impartiality and integrity within the Federal consultant and contractor system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my good friend from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Texas--you know, I am always open to working on these sometimes difficult rules that we have in our Congress. I respect the opinion, but I have a different perspective. What we are doing today is keeping the lights on.

With all due respect, the last time the Republicans were in charge of the Congress the lights went off. That is

not good for anyone. It is not good for the American people, and it is not good for the world economy.

What we are trying to do here in the House is make it a little bit easier for the arcane rules that, I think, most of us would agree to in the Senate to make it easier for the bill to come back over and, hopefully, have an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, on longer spending in an omnibus.

With all due respect, we have something that we have here in these Chambers: a disagreement. The tone, I think you can tell, of my voice is very different. But I do think the things that both gentlemen have brought up are real issues.

Immigration is a real issue. We have tried, many of us, to come up with something that is bipartisan that leads to solutions to a difficult situation that multiple administrations and Congresses have struggled for; that has a long history in this country when it comes to immigration, the benefit and the challenges around that; and being able to make sure that the beneficiaries of immigration are consistent with treaties that we have signed around the world, and principles, but also to American citizens.

On the other issues, those are all real issues. What we have here in front of us today in these resolutions are laws that will actually help the American people, too, and, lastly, will continue to keep the lights on by funding government.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are not talking about the Federal budget in its entirety today. That will continue to be negotiated and debated, and there will be a vote on it.

What we are talking about are specific resolutions that the Committee on Rules has passed down here to this body to talk about protecting workers who protect veterans. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about improving healthcare for America's veterans that we all say we respect, admire, and honor.

We know that when people are able to organize in the workplace, or at least to present the opportunity, they are safer. Research shows that hospitals that have had the ability for workers and nurses to organize and have a fair say in how they treat their patients, that mortality rates improve, that people are served better. That is what we are talking about today.

We are talking about giving police departments the resources they need in the world today so that behavioral health people can do their job, so that police officers can do their job and not respond to almost one in four calls in the United States that involve mental health, where the police officers are asked to do something that they shouldn't be asked to do.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, I have spent 30 years involved in my own district--from a mayor of a city of 130,000 people, to the legislature, to this body--developing programs with the police department in behavioral health, which started with a conversation with a beat patrolman and a mental health clinician. All it is about is improving the safety of Americans. That is what we are talking about here.

We are talking about helping with the opioid crisis. I haven't heard anything from the gentleman about the things that are actually in this rule.

Do we want to help people with the high mortality and suicide crisis in opioids that we know now, from the hearings that we have had, that the chair and I have asked for in the Committee on Oversight?

We brought the CEOs of the largest corporation, Johnson & Johnson, to testify in front of Congress about what they did at what used to be a great American pharmaceutical company that once had one of the most admired CEOs in the world and now has somebody who has lied on his college resume twice and has helped to kill Americans by deliberately turbocharging the sale of opioids to Americans.

That is what we are talking about in this rule, holding people accountable.

McKinsey & Company, a company that was based in San Francisco for years--I have known people who lived in my district and worked there. It once was a shining light of American innovation and management. Now, it has fallen to this epitome of greed and hypocrisy. That is what we are talking about, stopping that kind of behavior, in this rule.

We are talking about keeping the lights on in the United States Congress, and the Federal Government, for 1 week so that we can have an omnibus, and then we can debate those other things.

Do I agree that the process is not perfect? I agree. Do I agree we could do better? I agree, and I am open to those things. But let's focus on what is in this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy being on the floor and debating my friend from Pennsylvania. I will miss this if I am not afforded the opportunity to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, again, focusing on the rule here. First in this rule, we are helping veterans. We are helping the people who serve veterans to be able to organize.

One of my favorite quotes on the ability of workers to have a voice is from Dwight David Eisenhower, who said, Only a fool would try to stop an American man or woman in the workplace from organizing.

So that is the first point, helping people to have a voice in the VA to serve our veterans better.

The second point is on holding McKinsey & Company, a very large corporation, American company, accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic.

Third in the rule is helping our investment in public safety, a bipartisan effort that came out of the Senate, to help provide them to de-escalate when they are in a difficult situation.

Lastly, we are here to keep the lights on.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the debate and the passion, we do have work to do today, and I would request and ask Democrats and Republicans to vote ``yes'' on this rule.

This rule is an important step in passing these bills that will make a difference in the lives of the Americans that we represent and help restore faith in this institution and the government.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1518

Strike sections 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak about a very important piece of legislation we have coming before us, and we have an amendment to that legislation. The legislation, of course, is the National Defense Authorization Act.

This piece of legislation is something that we do annually in order to basically protect our country and be able to defend ourselves and be able to maintain the superpower status that we are. Part of that is what they call energy security, energy independence. You cannot be a superpower in the world if you do not have energy independence, and you can't be secure if you don't have energy independence.

Now, what has happened to us since this horrible war that Putin has bestowed upon the citizens of Ukraine is that he has weaponized energy. We have seen it coming. He has basically doubled down, so he has put Europe in a tremendous bind.

On top of that, we have seen the necessity that we have and the reality of the world we live in. We use fossil fuels, but can we use them cleaner and better? Absolutely. We do it better than anyplace in the world, and we can use it and do more to it.

We have a piece of legislation--a couple of them. We have the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we worked on across the aisle, and now we have the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA. Those two pieces of legislation are unbelievably unprecedented in our country.

What the IRA does is this, simply: It guarantees energy security. For 10 years, we are going to be able to basically produce fossil energy in the United States of America--more of it, better and cleaner, than at any time in the world--while we are also going to invest record amounts of money into new, clean technology for the future. You can't eliminate one.

People say: Well, my definition on energy and on climate is elimination. I want to eliminate--no coal, no oil, no gas.

Well, you are not living in the real world, and you have just seen that happen.

Our Nation, when we got pinched a little bit by these high prices that people are paying at the pump, we started thinking about removing sanctions from Iran--the most prolific terrorist supporters in the world--and giving them money to continue to do what they do, which is to wreak havoc on the world.

We are also talking about lifting the sanctions on Venezuela, which basically has very little oversight as far as environmental controls, because we needed it. We wanted someone else to do what we wouldn't do, and that is just wrong. It is not who we are as a country.

We can do it. We can lead the world. We are the superpower, and that means we have to produce everything that we have, an all-in energy policy, better than anyplace else in the world.

Now, in order to do that, we passed a piece of legislation that puts us on two paths. You can walk and chew gum. You have to have fossil. Now, if you are doing fossil, which is cleaner--that means carbon capture and sequestration--we put billions of dollars in there for that. On top of that, we put billions of dollars for methane, plugging old wells, abandoned mine lands--we are cleaning up everything. Tremendous.

If you are using the fossil that we use in the United States--cleaner and helping our allies around the world--we have been able to help the climate more than it can ever be helped by anything else. As we develop the new technologies of the world--hydrogen--we can make that all day long.

We are on the verge of doing something unbelievable, but let me tell you, most of it will be for naught because without permitting reform-- the United States of America is more litigious than any nation on Earth that has been developed, anyone. It takes longer to do anything here. We have people talking about how they have been trying to get permits for 16 years. Canada, average of 3 years; our friends in Australia, Down Under, 2 to 3 years; us, 5, 7, 10, and more.

This is a 10-year path we have. We have appropriated money in this piece of legislation for a 10-year path.

A lot of the programs we want to do, whether it is building pipelines, whether it is building new transmission lines to carry the energy that we need, whether it is developing new, cleaner technologies, whether it is carrying pipelines that are carrying hydrogen and CO2, we have all of this that we need, and it is not going to happen, and I just can't believe it.

Here is the thing I can't believe: All of my Republican friends--and I have worked with them, and I know they are upset when politics plays into this, but they are upset about the IRA. We did it through reconciliation. Well, it is the only vehicle we had--the only vehicle we had--to do something that was monumental. And we did that by working with my colleagues on the other side for the last 5 years.

My colleagues on the other side, my Republican friends, have always said: Joe, we have to have more energy. Well, guess what, the IRA is going to put more energy in. The Inflation Reduction Act is going to produce more

oil, more gas, cleaner than anywhere in the world, and we are going to have more energy.

Why did you call it inflation reduction? Because if you have more product, you can reduce the price. It is pretty simple--supply and demand. So we are on that.

They said: Well, we have to pay down debt.

Well, guess what the IRA did. It paid down over $250 billion of debt--the first time in history. For 30 years, we haven't paid down on debt. We did. So we have done so many things, but that seems to be a pretty good thing that is kind of stuck in their craw, and I am ashamed of that. I am afraid of that. And I am basically afraid for our country, that we are going down a path where it is all about the politics and all about the policy.

The policy is, the permitting bill that we have in front of us has been worked. We have worked it, and we have been sitting down and talking for 2 or 3 months. We have talked with our Senators on this side, we have talked with our Senators on the Republican side, and we looked at different things.

We are not basically eliminating any of the review process. We are basically expediting how we do it, and that is all we are asking for. We are asking the courts to expedite when they take this under consideration because of the environment. The environment is near and dear to all of us, and we all have a responsibility.

What we haven't taken into consideration is, if we don't do this, we will not be able to maintain independence, energy independence, which means energy security, which means national security. That is what we are not taking into consideration.

Who are we going to ask to do what we won't do for ourselves? Who is going to come to our rescue? We didn't see the Saudis coming. We didn't say--that didn't work too well. Nothing else is coming on board.

So I had a thing in this bill, and they said: Oh, it is a dirty deal with Joe, the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Oh yeah.

So 283 miles are completed of that pipeline, out of 303. Ninety-three percent is completed. We have a pipeline there that comes out of West Virginia that is a gathering with Southwestern Pennsylvania. It is also Southeast Ohio, the Marcellus Shale. It will put 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day into the market. You need more product in the market. It will backfill in the South and the Southwest. It will also help at Coves Point. You have LNG for all of our allies who are in desperate need of it.

So much is being done, and it has been so politicized. So if you want to know why people are upset, you want to know why they are mad, watch this place operate for a while.

I had a person one time said: Joe, I just can't believe what I see on television.

I said: Oh, you are upset, and you are mad, and you can't believe what you see on television when you are sitting in your nice, comfortable home? Try it from my seat. Try it from this seat, when you have got to play politics day in and day out to do what is right for our country.

If we don't have energy, we are not the country--my little State has given its all. We have produced the coal for the last hundred years that built the ships, built the guns, and built basically everything that we have had, the guns and ships and built America. We are probably one of the most patriotic States in the Nation. We have more people, lost more blood, given more life for the cause of freedom than most any State.

We are willing to do whatever it takes. We do the heavy lifting and don't complain--never have. But yet we try to do something now to produce more energy because the country needs it--oh, you can't put a dirty pipeline in. It is not; it is gas. It is transitional fuel. We need it. You are going to have it for quite a while, so why don't you use it from where you have it? The best supply in the world is right here next door. Yet the politics is being played.

They are afraid that maybe--I am up in cycle in 2024, that this might give me a leverage to get reelected. I have been on the ballot for 40 years. I don't know what is going to happen. I don't know what tomorrow is going to bring. I know what we have before us today. You have an unbelievable opportunity that is not going to happen in our lifetime again.

If we don't pass permitting reform right now--my Republican friends are saying: Oh, don't worry, when we have control of the House, we will be able to have a better deal.

My friends, let me say this: You had from 2016 to 2020. You had a President who was a Republican. The House was Republican. The Senate was Republican. You only had one vote for permitting reform, and that was mine as a Democrat--nobody else. Now we are going to have a supermajority of Democrats who are willing to move forward and maybe not be all comfortable about it, but it is the right thing to do, and now, because of politics, my friends aren't going to step to the plate? That is what they don't like. That is what people don't like. That is the politics that basically is destroying our country. You can't have it.

So I come before you to ask for your support on a piece of legislation. There is so much good that we can do. We can fix the mistakes that we have made. But you can't do it if you don't have the energy to provide the citizens of your country to have the opportunities to defend themselves and be able to help our allies around the world. We will not maintain superpower status, I can assure you, if that can't be done.

This piece of legislation, without the permitting--we have been able to do so much in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, and now having this--to be able to put it into operation is something that is desperately needed.

So, with that, I can only say that I pray to the Good Lord that we can put our politics aside and look at what is needed and go back home and tell the people this was absolutely--it is a win for everybody. It truly is a win for everybody.

This is something that I don't know how we can explain it if we vote against it. I don't know how we wouldn't vote for it. It is something we have all wanted.

Let me make one more point. All 50 of my Republican colleagues have signed on to a piece of legislation which is permitting--with my colleague from West Virginia--which is permitting reform, all 50. They know it needs to be done.

Now, if you are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you are going to say: Well, it is just not good enough. Is it 50 percent, is it 70 percent better than what we have ever had? Is it moving in the right direction? Does it build a foundation? Does it give you something to work off of? I believe it does because you have had tremendous amount of input.

That is all I am asking for. I am asking for a fair evaluation of a piece of legislation that will not pass through these Halls again.

So with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I need to respond to that. I wasn't intending to do so, but I want to clarify that, and I would hope my good friend would listen to my clarification because it is in the bill.

And either someone maybe had not informed you, sir, but, basically, that can't be done, what you said. I can't charge you in Kansas if the line passes through Kansas and you don't benefit from it. If there is no improved reliability, if it didn't reduce congestion, if it didn't reduce or lower power losses, if it wasn't greater carrying capacity, if it didn't reduce operating reserve--all of these that you have to have benefit to have any cost. We made that in the bill. We were very, very correct.

You know who brought that to me? Senator Cramer, our good friend from North Dakota, my Republican friend from North Dakota. He said: Joe, you can't do that.

Now, the other thing is, you were saying that, basically, the States lose all their rights. Again, Senator Cramer said: Joe, you have got to at least have 1 year. I said: It makes sense to me.

Now, let me tell you what happens. If there is new energy coming into the market, wherever it is coming from, new transmission lines coming in, if that line is going to come into a State and the State thinks it is invading its territory--because most of all of the utilities have monopolies on their grid system, correct? They all have monopolies. They don't want anyone infringing on that.

Well, guess what? They all have great relationships with the public service commissions. If the public service commission is saying: OK. Who wants to come in here?--and they are coming--and they say: Let's sit down and talk.

Now, if the person who is already there--let's say you have your own power company and you have the utility lines or the grid system, and you say: I am not going to expand. I am not bringing any more power because I am not going to develop over here. It is not profitable for me.

Then they have got to make a decision, your PSC. Now, if you all can't agree in 1 year and it is something of national interest, then it can move.

But think what would happen if Dwight Eisenhower, building the interstate highway system--from, I think, your part of the world--the great general, the great President, OK. This would have never happened. He would have never built the interstate system. How about the interstate pipeline system? We would have never had the energy we have today.

All we are asking for is the opportunity to bring energy to the market where it is needed. That is all.

And then when you said: Well, it is going to be a litigious nightmare--that is what we tried to work through, and we did that. You know why? We basically put deadlines. We set firm deadlines for permitting decisions: 2 years for environmental impact statements, 1 year for environmental assessments. That is a tremendous improvement from where we have been. Then we basically put enforcement. We have stronger enforcement than any other permitting reform law passed ever in the United States of America.

It lets project developers seek a court order. So if you are trying to get something and you are being held up, then you have, basically, the expedited right to go to the court and to have expedition. You don't have that now.

To me--I have heard people say: Just that right there allows me to make a decision whether I stay with the program or get out of it, if I am going to do a project or not, without losing my rear end and going bankrupt.

We have answered every question that we possibly could. It is the most advanced, bipartisan bill we could ever get and still have the support we need. All we need is your support, sir.

I call for the vote, Mr. President.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I move to concur with a further amendment, No. 6522, to the message to accompany H.R. 7776, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I am really working hard with my colleagues here--I see Senator Durbin has come to the floor--to make a law that we all know is the right thing to do.

In fact, in my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I don't think I have ever been involved with a matter that more desperately cries out for a just resolution to a simple issue. And it is this: Do we, as the U.S. Senate, want to help sick U.S. Marines and their families, or do we want to allow a legislative bill that continues to further enrich trial lawyers in America? That is the question. That is the law I am working hard with many of my colleagues to make happen.

And I think everyone knows the answer. Everyone in this body knows what the right thing to do is. Every American watching knows what the right thing to do is, and that is to help the brave Marine Corps heroes and their families who have sacrificed for decades to serve our Nation.

I have spoken to many of my colleagues, many of my Democratic colleagues in particular, and I know in their hearts that they also recognize we need to fix this problem.

So what I am asking my colleagues to do, particularly my Democratic friends, is this: Help me fix it.

Now, I want to say something. You are going to need a little courage, like the marines that we are helping. You have a constituency that really does not like my legislation: the trial bar of America. We know they are very powerful. We know that most of my colleagues don't ever want to cross them, and they certainly don't want my bill to pass.

But, again, I ask my Democratic colleagues: Have courage. Do the right thing. Work with me on fixing this problem.

So what is the problem?

Well, I have spoken on the floor about this problem, usually in angry tones because it burns me up. And any American watching who understands this, almost immediately, it burns them up. And the marines and their families, it burns them up as well.

But to be honest, this afternoon I am really down here more in terms of sadness and disappointment rather than anger. But I am going to explain it once again, and if you are watching on TV or watching back at home, give a call to your Senator and say ``Hey. Fix this injustice.'' This is a real easy, easy issue to fix. Here is the problem.

We, a couple months ago, passed here the PACT Act, which was legislation to help military members who have been sickened by burn pits. This is an issue that I have been focused on my whole Senate career, starting with bipartisan legislation several years ago with Senator Manchin, Senator Klobuchar. So that was good. Important. Expensive, but important.

We have got to take care of our veterans and our military. To me, that is the No. 1 priority we should be doing here in the Senate, which is why a provision of the PACT Act--to provide compensation for marines who were sickened by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune--was also considered in the PACT Act. That was important. We should do that for these marines and their families--marines serving in the 1970s, 1980s at Camp Lejeune.

So far, so good. That is what has happened.

But as the legislation of the PACT Act and the Camp Lejeune marines compensation act--it started to become clear something reared its ugly head, and what reared its ugly head

was the legislation was more of a gift to America's trial lawyers than it was to sick marines.

Now, we have all seen these ads. As a matter of fact, this morning, on the radio, I heard a couple of them already. You can't go anywhere, turning on the TV, without a lawyer asking marines to call to get them to help under this Camp Lejeune compensation act. Here we are. We have seen it. Everybody has seen it.

We had a VA hearing about a month ago. I asked the VA, How much do you think trial lawyers have been spending? This is a month ago. They estimated well over a billion dollars a month ago. A billion dollars. A billion dollars.

Do you think that $1 billion is going to go to sick marines and their families? It is not. It is not. Now look, I don't blame the marines who are dialing these 1-800 numbers. They are getting bombarded. If they are sick, they think this is the way they are going to get cured and get their money.

That is not the case. A lot of these are scams, and we know it. A lot of these are scams. The problem right now is if a marine calls one of these numbers, there is no limitation on what the trial lawyer representing the marine can take out of the marine's award. No limitation, no cap on contingency fees, no cap on anything.

And here is the real problem. Everybody saw this problem coming; that is, as opposed to the marines getting compensation for being sick, the trial lawyers of America would be enriched. Everybody saw it coming. And to their credit, the Biden administration saw it coming. So the Justice Department of the Biden administration had recommended in their technical assistance to us here in the Senate that there should be caps on these awards for trial lawyers. Makes sense. This is the Biden administration Justice Department--friends of many of these law firms, but they knew it was the right thing to do. They said 10 percent caps on contingency awards and 2 percent for filing fees. That was the Biden administration's recommendation.

Now, that didn't happen. I won't go into all the bloody, gory details, but as we tried to amend the PACT Act, we wanted an amendment to do that. The Biden administration did, the veterans service organizations did because it was pretty simple. If there is a cap on fees for the lawyers, the marines are going to get more; if there isn't, the trial lawyers are going to get more. We worked it hard.

Unfortunately and sadly--really sadly--my Democratic colleagues blocked all those amendments when we tried to pass the PACT Act.

So what has happened? What the Biden Justice Department predicted, what we all predicted, it is happening. Billions of dollars of ads--see them every day, hear them every day and every night, and marines getting crumbs and trial attorneys getting rich. That is just not right.

There is not one Senator who knows that that is the right thing to do. This is an injustice right now in America, and already some marines have lost money because of these scams. Some of these firms are promising big paydays. Of course, they are asking for money upfront. A recent media story highlighted a marine in Kentucky whose face was actually used in an ad claiming he had received a $35,000 settlement. In fact, he told a reporter he got 35 cents, OK? That is not justice.

So, of course, right now the VA, local governments, veterans groups are frantically trying to warn marines and their families: Hey, don't listen to that, and, Congress, please help us. There are reports that some law firms are charging 50 or 60 percent contingency fees. Are you kidding me?

The veterans groups, the VA itself, the Biden administration VA, are crying out for help--help--no more scams.

Here is what the American Legion said at a recent meeting in a resolution they had passed:

WHEREAS, Predatory law firms charging exorbitant fees have

engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns [hurting veterans].

. . . The American Legion urges Congress to provide the

necessary oversight [for] the implementation of the Camp

Lejeune Justice Act to ensure veterans receive fair

compensation.

That is the American Legion.

I am a member. The VFW has also come out in support of what we are trying to do. So this should be simple. This should be simple.

So what does my bill do? What does my amendment do? I am going to explain it briefly here. The full name of my amendment, my bill, is the Protect Camp Lejeune Victims Ensnared by Trial Lawyers Scams Act, the VETS Act for short. And it is pretty simple. First of all, it just goes back to what the Biden administration had recommended in terms of a cap. Everybody here agrees there needs to be a cap on contingency fees.

They had mentioned 10 percent, as I mentioned, on contingency fees and a 2-percent cap for filing the necessary paperwork.

Now my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, respectfully, I think he is going to speak and say: Well, wait a minute. The normal fee is 33\1/2\ percent, one-third contingency fees. That is actually correct.

But this isn't a normal fee. The reason the Biden administration has a low contingency fee at 10 percent is that the lawyers who are going to receive and help marines get these benefits aren't going to go through big trials. They are not going to go through discovery. It is almost an administrative procedure process to check some boxes. The government doesn't even have a defense in this. So that is why 33\1/3\ percent, the standard fare for contingency fees, has no place in this legislation--no place in this legislation. This is a government administrative process that is going to be made easy, supposedly, in the bill for marines--sick marines to recover compensation and their families.

So when you hear talk about: No, no, it has got to be one-third. That is just not true.

The Biden administration recommended 10 percent. So don't be fooled by that. Americans watching, don't be fooled by that.

So here is another thing.

That is the key to my legislation. The other thing we are saying is because the compensation will come out of other benefits that the veterans receive from the VA, we make sure that the contingency fee is based on the net award, not the total award. Again, that is to serve the marines and their families, not the trial lawyers.

Let me give you one final thing my legislation does, and I don't think there is any Senator who disagrees with this. And I am pretty sure the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not disagree with this. Somehow, in the VA-implemented regulations on the implementation of this legislation, they issued a reg that makes sure that trial lawyers get paid before the sick marines and their families.

They what? Yes, right now. Now that is crazy. Everybody, including lawyers, knows that the client gets paid and then the client pays the lawyer. It shouldn't be the lawyer gets paid and then the client gets paid. That is crazy, especially if the client is a sick U.S. marine. And I even think my colleague Senator Durbin agrees with that. So that is the other piece of this legislation.

We could fix that overnight by having the Secretary of the VA take a relook at that reg and say: Hey, that is wrong. Let's rescind that. I would welcome if Secretary McDonough would do that.

Well, I am going to keep fighting for this issue. This is an urgent issue. Payments under the Camp Lejeune Act will start early next year. The ads that we saw that I showed you here are likely to intensify over the holidays to try to ensnare even more marines into these schemes.

But here is what I am going to do: I am going to withdraw my amendment. I am not going to force a vote on this amendment this afternoon because I want to get to a law, and I had a feeling that unfortunately my amendment was not going to get passed in this Senate on this vote this afternoon.

So I want to work with Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, other Members on the other side of the aisle to do what we all know is the right thing--to pass a law that emphasizes what we all thought the bill was doing in the first place in the PACT Act, to take care of sick marines and their families and not enrich trial lawyers.

Again, I urge my colleagues to work with me. Like the U.S. marines, have courage to stand up to powerful interest groups who are trying to take more money from individuals who deserve it.

Work with me on this. It is the holiday season. Let's give the marines and their families the gift that they deserve and have earned through courage and sacrifice, not the lump of coal and breadcrumbs, which is the result of this bill that dramatically focuses on enriching trial lawyers at the expense of the U.S. marines. I am committed to work all weekend, all next week, but we need to get this done before we finish this Congress at the end of the year.

Every American knows it. Every U.S. Senator knows it. It is the right thing to do, and I certainly hope my colleagues are going to work with me to make it happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois.

He has my full commitment to try to get this done before we leave, and I am willing to compromise on some of these issues. He makes a good point in that, with the Senate's schedule, we are not going to be back here until almost the end of January, and by then, some of these payments will have started to be awarded.

We do not want--and I think the Senator from Illinois agrees with me--situations wherein payments are going by 50, 60 percent to contingency fees. Nobody wants that. We shouldn't want that. That is just unfair. This regulation at the VA is also ridiculously unfair in favoring trial lawyers over sick marines.

So the Senator from Illinois has my commitment. I will work day and night on this issue to try and get it done before we leave--before we leave. Otherwise, you are going to have a lot of marines--sick marines--and their families who are going to get ripped off. We know that that is going to happen, and we shouldn't allow it.

I will work with the Senator from Illinois, as he has got a lot of power as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on this important issue that, I think, we should all care about. So I appreciate his comments, and I will redouble my efforts on this topic.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania, I appreciate the Speaker, and the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania and I share a love of outlaw country music, whether it is Texas-based--my preference--or generally. There is a famous picture of Johnny Cash standing up giving his middle finger, and it is on the cover of an album. If all 435 of us stood on the steps of the Capitol with our middle finger to the American people, it would be a more honest action than what we are engaging in here on the floor of the people's House right now.

Let me tell you what is happening right now. In true swamp fashion, what we are about to do is deem as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to enable us to have a revenue measure--to enable us to give the Senate a revenue measure to satisfy the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House. The House amendment to a Senate amendment fast-tracks the omnibus by allowing the Senate to bypass a motion to proceed vote.

Now, that is a bunch of complicated, parliamentary procedure gobbledygook for the American people, but what it is is a fraud. It is a fraud.

It is actually trying to end-run the rules in order to jam through what? A massive $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill without any actual debate. That is what is happening right now on the floor of the House of Representatives, nothing else.

In that $1.7 trillion bill--and pause for a second--what are we actually packaging here? A week-long continuing resolution to keep the government open through this weekend into next week so negotiations can continue to wrap up this $1.7 trillion monstrosity.

So the vote today is a vote to perpetuate and extend funding for a week to allow a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill in a lameduck Congress. That has not been done, by the way, in the last 70 years when we have had a flip of the House, a flip in majority control of the House. We have not done that over the last 70 years. In the five times there has been a flip, we do not pass big spending bills in a lameduck Congress, which is what this is. My Democratic colleagues know it; my Democratic colleagues in the Senate know it; and the Senate Republicans who seem to be trying to grease the skids of this, they know it, as well. Here we sit.

So to the American people, you need to understand what the people's House is doing to you today--standing on the steps of the Capitol sticking their middle finger up at you would be more honest because this is defense spending, $858 billion, a 10 percent increase.

We can debate the need for a defense spending increase. Many of us probably would agree we need to have more defense spending, but we also need to fix the Department of Defense. We need to stop having it turn into a woke agency that is essentially social engineering wrapped in a uniform. Let's fix the Department of Defense. No, we are not debating that. We are just going to give another blank check of 10 percent additional spending.

But it is worse than that. We are now going to have nondefense spending reports--we haven't seen the text because, oh, no, the little people here in the House can't see the text before we actually vote on this crap. No, no, no, they are going to jam it through without seeing the text. Nondefense spending--reports indicate somewhere between an 8 to 11 percent increase.

Now, to put that in context, we are talking about something in the order of $50 to $60 billion. Here is the thing, we just spent something like $2 trillion in nondefense discretionary plus-up during COVID, and we are now going to jump into this, and we are going to say, oh, yeah, I have got a good idea. Let's jump up nondefense discretionary spending. That is all of the alphabet soup of all of the agencies that are attacking the American people every single day, empowering the FBI to designate parents as domestic terrorists, empowering the DHS to not actually secure the homeland while Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning and immigrants are burning up 53 of them in a tractor trailer in San Antonio.

That is what we are dealing with. This CR is the gateway drug to an omnibus spending bill next week. That is why we should oppose it. We should oppose the CR, we should oppose this rule, and we should oppose the omnibus.

The American people deserve a House of Representatives that is actually doing the work of appropriating rather than jamming through an omnibus bill right before Christmas in a lameduck session after the American people spoke and sent a new majority to the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the collegiality of the body and wanting to engage. I am happy to engage. We just never get a chance to engage.

We are down here, basically, in a fake debate. That is what we all know. I mean, the truth is it is not like we have a body, a Chamber filled here with human beings debating this $1.7 trillion while we are $32 trillion in debt. I would be happy to.

Why don't we actually roll up our sleeves around these tables and do the work? But we don't do that.

We are literally down here, and we are going to do--what?--30 minutes a side, if we even do that, and then we are going to vote. We are going to vote on a rule that packages together, as I said, deeming as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to pass a $1.7 trillion omnibus, combined with a CR for an extension for a week, in a lame-duck Congress. That is the truth.

The American people pull their hair out. They go, gosh, what on Earth is happening in Washington?

Well, I will tell them what is happening in Washington. This, this is what is happening in Washington.

We know what this is about. This is jamming through a bill at the eleventh hour to get the political priorities of the current Democratic majority, and a handful of Senate Republicans are happy to do it so they can get pork.

The House and the Senate have requested a total of $16 billion for 7,500 earmarks. The top requester: Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of Senate Appropriations, with $656 million. This is a nice little send-off for the appropriators in the Senate.

But the fact of the matter is the American people are the ones who get screwed in this deal. They are the ones who end up losing their country with $32 trillion in debt.

There is no justification for ramping up spending an additional 10 percent for nondefense discretionary after all the money that has been spent under COVID and using the Defense Department as the backs upon which you are going to place the debt of our children and grandchildren and say that, ``Oh, yes, we are doing this for defense.'' That is just wrong.

At what point are we actually going to do the work of the American people in the people's House? At what point are we going to actually debate? At what point are we actually going to amend? At what point are we actually going to live within our means and stop writing checks we can't cash?

The American people are staring at us. They throw their hands up in the air and wonder what has become of the country that their brothers and sisters and dads and moms and daughters and sons have fought for.

Why do we stand in front of that flag? Why do we open in prayer? Why do we say the Pledge of Allegiance if we are going to rip apart the flag right here in this body, in this Chamber? Because that is what we are doing, using backroom deals, dropping these bills on the floor, and not allowing us to actually engage in debate over these important matters.

The American people are tired of spending money we don't have, and they are tired of open borders. They are tired of empowering bureaucrats like the FBI. They are tired of forced vaccine mandates at the Department of Defense. They are tired of an IRS harassing the American people, allegedly, for more revenue. They are tired of an NIH and a CDC making it up as they go along and shutting down economies and jamming it down the throats of the American people. They are tired of an EPA and a Department of the Interior restricting Americans' ability to have reliable energy. The American people are tired of it.

I hope help is on the way. I am glad the Republicans seem united against this in the House, and I am looking at Mitch McConnell when I say this: Do your job, Leader McConnell. Do your job, and follow the wishes of the American people, who gave a majority to Republicans in the House of Representatives. Let's stop this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California talked about the extent to which the process is bad and that we can do better. Well, I am glad that he agrees with that.

The question is, well, let's agree right now to amend the CR to March. Why don't we do that? Why don't we agree right now to amend the continuing resolution until March?

Well, we know why my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, right? They don't want to have a full-throated debate on this. They don't want to have an actual discussion.

Why don't we have an open process? Why don't we actually have amendments here on the floor of the House? We haven't been able to offer an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives since May 2016.

But the gentleman from California knows this. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. This isn't about actually saying let's have a process that works. It is the opposite. It is using Christmas and the end of the year to jam this through, not to buy time with a 1-week CR so we can negotiate.

Who is negotiating? Three people in a room? We are not. We are not debating this on the floor. We are not going to do it in the light of day. No. What is going to happen is one big bill will be dropped on the floor after this rule is jammed through, on the 23rd of December, 2 days before Christmas, intentionally, right before Christmas, in order to force everybody to come in, with no amendments, to vote up or down on $1.7 trillion.

How on Earth did we end up $32 trillion in debt? That is how, and there is no actual resolve to do anything about that.

Again, control of the House of Representatives has shifted from one party to the other five times since 1954. In none of those years have we had the outgoing Congress pass a comprehensive spending bill in the lame duck that is after the election. We shouldn't do it now. We shouldn't do it in the future.

One last point: If there is a debate in the Senate right now and some of our Senate colleagues decide to object to the continuing resolution, which I would support, which would then call into question the funding on Saturday, when we wake up, let's be very clear that it is Democrats who would be risking shutting down the government because they are so married to funding the alphabet soup of the bureaucracy throughout this town that is strangling the American people, strangling prosperity, spending money we don't have, refusing to secure the border, empowering FBI agents to go after the American people. Those are the priorities of my Democratic colleagues.

If there is any debate on Saturday as to whether the lights are going to be turned on in the government, it is on the hands of Democrats married to a bureaucracy rather than standing up in defense of the American people who send us here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation that are, once again, nothing but missed opportunities to address the multiple crises facing our country under the Biden Presidency.

Rather than working with Republicans to actually address the unmitigated crisis at our southern border, to address the cold war we have with China, the proxy war we have with Russia, or the historic levels of inflation, Democrats are rushing to the floor these half- baked legislative items that will create more problems than they aim to solve.

Look no further than S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. Instead of making meaningful reforms to Federal acquisition policy, this legislation is duplicative, and it is contradictory to existing policies. It also tells the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to do something that it is already required to do.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, the VA Employee Fairness Act. This legislation would put veteran patients at risk by shifting questions of professional conduct to collective bargaining.

The Secretary of the VA has been and should continue to be directly accountable for the quality of care provided to our veterans at the VA.

While we are focusing on these unnecessary bills, China has recently signed a $50 billion trade deal with our ally Saudi Arabia; Putin, once again, threatened to launch a nuclear war on the West; and the wealth of the average American has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol reported that over the weekend there were over 16,000 migrant encounters at the border--and wait for it--that was in a 48-hour period, 16,000 in less than 2 days, but President Biden hasn't stepped foot on the southern border since he took office.

Last week, when he was not visiting the border while in Arizona, President Joe Biden was asked about that, and his response was ``There are more important things going on.''

Yet, during the administration there have been nearly 5 million illegal immigrant crossings at our southern border, and that includes 1 million got-aways. These are individuals that we have no record of that we just know escaped into the interior of the country.

Yet, Biden has failed at protecting our southern border just as he failed in America's prisoner swap with President Putin. The administration effectively surrendered to Putin by swapping a woke celebrity basketball player for the ``Merchant of Death,'' an international arms smuggler with the blood of Americans on his hands.

This disastrous negotiation is just another failed foreign policy decision that was based on Russia's terms, not ours. This rash decision left two other Americans detained in Russia: Pittsburgh history teacher Marc Fogel, and U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. They have no clear chance of returning home now. We have lost all leverage unless--I am going to be surprised to discover that--we have two ``merchants of death'' in a Federal prison in the U.S. Something tells me that is not the case.

What we should be doing is we should be immediately acting to protect our national security. We should be ensuring the safe return of all Americans that are wrongfully detained abroad. We should be working to secure the southern border. We should not be passing ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation. To be frank, our time is too precious, and our challenges are too great.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing any of the crises that are actually facing this Nation, House Democrats are allowing the Senate to ram through a huge omnibus spending bill that was written without the input of House Republicans and was written behind closed doors.

In September, House Republicans were very clear in opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame- duck session. Once again, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government despite spending most of the year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has fueled inflation and driven up our debt.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately strike sections 8 and 9 from the rule, which would strike the omnibus vehicle from this rule.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I really can't stand the cliche that history repeats itself, but that is true. To prove that, let me just read some excerpts from a Joe Biden speech from 2006. Joe Biden said: ``The world is going to Hades in a handbasket. We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to the avian flu. We do not have enough vaccines. We do not have enough police officers. And we are going to debate, the next 3 weeks, I am told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We all voted.''

That was Joe Biden in 2006. It sounds awfully familiar to what my colleagues across the aisle are doing now with these fluff bills, bills that are already on the books and nothing but a distraction from the real crises that are facing this Nation.

To talk more about that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, this rule provides for four pieces of legislation that, once again, are just missed opportunities to actually address the problems we are facing.

Let's talk about one of the biggest problems, and that is the southern border. To contextualize this, let me give you some stats. This year, 98 suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to cross the southern border. Think about that.

It took 19 hijackers on 9/11 to pull off the largest terrorist attack in this country. In this year alone, we have let 98 suspected terrorists walk across the southern border.

In October, there were over 230,000 illegal immigrant encounters at the southern border. That is just in October. To put that into context, that is a 334 percent increase from the average number of October encounters under President Trump.

In November, there were more than 70,000 known got-aways at the southern border. That is a historic record.

What is really worse is the fentanyl crisis, the fentanyl that is coming across the southern border. There were more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2022. That is a record.

As a reminder, a lethal dose of fentanyl is only 2 milligrams. Fentanyl was responsible for two-thirds of all drug overdoses last year.

There has been a 94 percent increase in fentanyl deaths since 2019. To put that into more context, that is one fentanyl overdose every 7 minutes in the United States.

Just 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming across the southern border are seized by our Border Patrol agents.

What does the administration say on this? It is classic gaslighting. I will quote Joe Biden once again. He said, ``There are more important things going on.'' Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, said the border is secure. DHS Secretary Mayorkas said, look, the border is secure.

They are either gaslighting, or they have no connection and no grounding in reality.

As far as the omnibus, let's just go back to September. In September, House Democrats were clear in their opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame-duck session. We didn't want it then; we don't want it now.

Unfortunately, on September 30, a continuing resolution was passed funding the government through December 16. So, here we are today.

This 1-week continuing resolution is an attempt to buy additional time for a massive lame-duck spending bill in which House Republicans had no seat at the negotiating table.

We will soon be in the majority. Republicans will soon be in the majority. We will be in the driver's seat to fight for our priorities. That is why every Republican should be a ``no'' on the Democrats' lame- duck omnibus spending bill.

To talk more about the omnibus, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Lives are being lost while President Biden and Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at our southern border. Tragically, just last week, on December 7, United States Border Patrol Agent Raul Humberto Gonzalez, Jr., was killed while chasing a group of migrants across the border.

To go back to that quote from President Biden about the southern border and about why he hasn't visited, despite the fact that he was just in Arizona, ``There are more important things going on.'' That is what President Biden has to say; stinging words

given the deaths and casualties that we are seeing at the southern border and the fentanyl deaths and overdoses in the interior of this country.

It is absolutely maddening to see such a flagrant disregard not only for our hardworking Border Patrol agents but our Nation's immigration system as a whole. For that reason, we must bring the border crisis to an end.

But President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats have manufactured this historic crisis on our southern border by halting the construction of the border wall, ending Trump's remain in Mexico policy, and refusing to visit the border.

U.S. Border Patrol facilities are becoming overrun with thousands of illegal immigrants in custody. This crisis is only getting worse. On December 21, title 42 ends, a powerful tool that allowed border officials to expel more than 2 million migrants during the pandemic. There now have been 20 straight months of over 150,000 illegal border crossings.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats continue to ignore this historic disaster at our border. This crisis could not be more devastating to the sovereignty and the security of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.