H.Res. 1316

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the majority's Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2025.

First, I want to start by acknowledging the hard work of those who are serving on the front lines at the Department of Homeland Security. They are making sacrifices every day to protect this country, and I am committed to recognizing that. Many of the policies I pushed to have included in the bill acknowledge both the challenges and obstacles these men and women face.

For example, today's bill includes key priorities that focus on expanding employee wellness and suicide prevention programs, including funding additional wellness centers that build upon the successes of the El Paso pilot, providing resources to increase accountability at the Coast Guard as we work to protect cadets from sexual harassment and assault, and improving access to contraceptives for Coast Guard servicemembers and their family members.

However, despite these silver linings, the fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security appropriations bill put forward by Republicans falls short of addressing our country's real and urgent needs.

The legislation not only increases funding for inhumane, costly, and ineffective responses to the humanitarian crisis at our border, but it also cuts $2.1 billion to border security operations, including the complete elimination of the shelter and services program and the critical resources our U.S. Border Patrol agents need to secure the border.

Let me be clear: Eliminating the shelter and services program will not stop migration. It will only prevent communities from managing surges humanely and safely, ensuring chaos and desperation across our country.

The bill also guts funding for refugee and asylum programs and even includes a provision that would cut over $300 million in fee funding for the asylum program. The proposed cuts to the asylum program would only further overwhelm our broken immigration system and ensure that more people are released from DHS custody without legal status. That outcome is not good for anyone.

The funding choices made by the majority in this bill will result in more people being released into the interior while they likely wait years for their case to be decided.

The disappointing truth is that this bill doubles down on outdated, ineffective border strategies that ignore reality and will waste billions in taxpayer dollars. These ineffective policies will leave our communities exposed to humanitarian crises without the resources necessary to respond.

With this bill, House Republicans are turning their back on U.S. Border Patrol agents and the critical funds they need to maintain safe and humane facilities.

The failures of this bill continue. This bill also underfunds critical cyber defense programs, leaving Americans vulnerable and unprepared to deal with cyber threats at a time when our schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure are under constant attack.

In the face of threats of terrorism and violent extremism that have been highlighted by both the prior and current administrations, this bill eliminates funding for the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, eliminates funding for the targeted violence and terrorism prevention grant program, cuts funding for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, and includes statutory restrictions that would prevent the Department from taking the important actions needed to reverse the alarming trends we see in violent extremism and terrorism.

If passed as written, this bill would leave our communities with nothing to address some of the most urgent threats we are facing across the United States. This legislation reflects a missed opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to prioritize the needs of our Nation, respond to existing and emerging threats, and address the concerns Americans have expressed about our immigration system, national security, climate change, and more.

The challenges our country faces cannot be overstated. We are living in unprecedented times, and the American people are looking for Congress to set aside partisan politics and do the right thing. Unfortunately, this bill misses the mark and ignores our country's most pressing needs. That is why I cannot support it in its current form.

Earlier this week, President Biden issued a statement confirming that he would veto this bill if presented with it.

We must do better and work collaboratively on a bill that would meet the real and urgent needs of our Nation. In its current state, this bill does not do that.

Madam Chair, I urge my majority colleagues to abandon this partisan theater and work with Democrats to produce a bipartisan bill that puts people over politics and funds the priorities that will keep our country safe, healthy, and prepared to face the challenges with resolve.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

This bill falls short of what Americans deserve. It cuts necessary funding to secure our border, it defunds critical counterterrorism and cybersecurity programs when we should be looking to invest more, and it abandons our core values as Americans.

I will be voting ``no'' on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

I thank Chairman Amodei for working with us to include these bipartisan priorities in this amendment.

While I do have some concerns about the extent to which some of these accounts would be cut by these amendments, I trust that we will be able to address those problems before this bill becomes law.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, CBP conducts significant analysis when it comes to setting port of entry hours, which includes traffic trends, staffing availability, and the presence of other ports of entry within a reasonable distance. CBP also considers the economic ramifications of what a closure might have on local communities. Altering port of entry hours is not a decision made lightly.

Removing CBP's discretion to limit hours for these ports of entry sets a bad precedent that fails to allow for the consideration of other compelling national and local threats that CBP must consider.

Unfortunately, this is just another example of an overly restrictive policy that unnecessarily ties the administration's hands when working to protect the American people. I must respectfully oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Secretary of Homeland Security plays a critical role in our national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served in his role admirably and has been an honorable public servant for decades, including service as a U.S. attorney, the Director of USCIS, and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

If my majority colleagues were sincere about addressing and ending the humanitarian crisis at the border, they would not have rejected the opportunity to even debate one of the toughest bipartisan border bills in history simply to appease the desires of those who wish to keep chaos at the border for political gain.

When the President and Secretary Mayorkas requested additional resources to secure the border, my colleagues across the aisle ignored that, too. They even demanded that we ``take care of our own border first'' before we consider providing any funding to Ukraine and our other allies.

My colleagues and I remain ready to address the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security and to work toward building a modern immigration system that reflects the realities of the world we live in today and advances the best interests of American families, businesses, and communities.

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this amendment raises serious constitutional issues. Punishing the Secretary is not the way to handle policy disputes. Unfortunately, this amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is yet another cruel and inhumane attempt by the majority to penalize legal immigrants for accessing health benefits and other government services available to them.

The amendment attempts to revert to a Trump-era public charge rule in 2019 that temporarily disrupted a decades-long policy. The Trump-era rule faced several legal challenges, leading to injunctions and halts in its implementation and costing the taxpayers every time the administration attempted to defend it in court.

The Biden administration's rule merely restores the historical understanding of a public charge back to

what had been in place for decades. Under the Biden administration rule, we align with decades-long policy that simply requires immigration officials to consider whether a noncitizen will become dependent on cash benefits. This is something I would imagine American taxpayers would like to know.

Nonetheless, I think it is also important to point out that the idea that immigrants somehow harm our economy or are a net cost to taxpayers is false. For example, earlier this year, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation within the Department of Health and Human Services published a report on the fiscal impact of refugees and asylees at the Federal, State, and local levels from 2005 to 2019.

One of the key points of the study was this: The net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over the 15-year period at $123.8 billion, billion with a b, meaning that refugees and asylees contributed more revenue than they cost in expenditures to the American taxpayers. Their net fiscal benefit to the Federal Government was estimated at $31.5 billion, and the net fiscal benefit to State and local governments was estimated at $92.3 billion.

While I can't speak to the intentions behind the gentleman's amendment, I will note that this amendment won't even accomplish what my colleagues think it will. Since the Trump-era rule was rescinded, the effect of this amendment, if enacted, would be to simply revert back to the 1999 guidance, which is essentially the same as the current rule that is being implemented.

This amendment is just another baseless waste of time that does nothing to advance the best interests of Americans. I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Homeland Security does not engage in rulemaking behind closed doors. There is a rulemaking process that involves the public. In fact, it was established by Congress, and it has existed for decades.

The amendment would prohibit DHS and its agencies from issuing major rules that are needed in order to implement and carry out laws enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, this is just another example of a bad policy rider aimed at unnecessarily tying the administration's hands.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I join my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee in shared opposition to this amendment.

Instead of discussing cuts to our cybersecurity agency, also known as CISA, we should actually be discussing investing more. We cannot continue to play these political games. We don't have the luxury of doing that if we want to be serious about staying ahead of our foreign adversaries. Given what we know, we should be serious.

We have all been warned about the clear intentions of the People's Republic of China, that it considers every sector that makes our society run fair game in its bid to dominate on the world stage.

The FBI Director told us that PRC's plan is to land low blows against civilian infrastructure to try and induce panic and break America's will to resist.

They are not alone in their plans to use cyber and other capabilities to threaten our national security, our economy, and, frankly, our way of life.

Now, I assure you, our adversaries are not holding back on their investments and they are not playing by the same rules. We have, unfortunately, already seen their capabilities and the kind of disruptions and destruction they intend to cause to the United States and our allies.

It is really unspeakable that we are having a debate right now about cutting our premier cyber defense capabilities. Now is not the time to reduce our ability to defend our Nation's cybersecurity posture. We should be investing in it.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we don't even need to discuss the reasons why wasting funds on additional miles of wall is a bad idea.

The amendment does nothing but make an ill attempt to invest in an ineffective and costly response to the challenges we are facing at the border.

Furthermore, it also calls on the DHS Secretary to take action regarding the use of funds that Congress has already determined he does not control.

While CBP is the primary agency responsible for the seizure of these assets at the border, the proceeds typically go into the Treasury forfeiture fund, which is managed by the Treasury Department.

The allowable uses of these funds are defined in law, and there is an established process for which the Secretary of Homeland Security can make requests of the Treasury Secretary for a portion of these funds.

A significant portion of the proceeds are necessary for the agencies responsible for storing and maintaining seized and forfeited assets and a series of other mandatory requirements.

Requiring that all of the funds seized at the southern border be used for an ineffective, outdated border wall would create a problem with the execution of the fund, causing it to quickly become insolvent.

I oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. The Shelter and Services Program is incredibly important to communities across the country, including mine, Illinois' 14th District.

We all must realize that the flow of migration doesn't just impact communities at the border. It can be felt across the country, including in my home State of Illinois.

Eliminating the Shelter and Services Program will not stop migration. This funding provides States, cities, and nonprofits with the resources they need to provide temporary aid to new migrant arrivals.

As people come to our country legally seeking a better life, we cannot ignore their humanitarian needs. Last year, we were successful in providing $650 million for the Shelter and Services Program, but we know the needs of our communities go far beyond what we provided last year and even what this amendment provides.

However, I am grateful for the gentleman's amendment because it is an important starting point, and it provides a strong foundation for future discussions.

It is no secret that we need to overhaul our immigration system and that there appears to be bipartisan agreement on that. Until then, we must provide our communities with the resources they need to manage the surge now.

Reducing funding for a ridiculous border wall and ICE transportation funding to pay for this program makes sense.

We need to move away from expensive, ineffective, and outdated solutions that do not address the migration challenges we are experiencing today.

I urge support for this amendment, and I look forward to increasing this funding for the Shelter and Services Program in our final enacted bill.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Secretary of Homeland Security plays a critical role in our national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served in his role admirably and has been an honorable public servant for decades, including service as a U.S. attorney, the Director of USCIS, and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

If my majority colleagues were sincere about addressing and ending the humanitarian crisis at the border, they would not have rejected the opportunity to even debate one of the toughest bipartisan border bills in history simply to appease the desires of those who wish to keep chaos on the border for political gain.

When the President and Secretary Mayorkas requested additional resources to secure the border, my colleagues across the aisle ignored that, too--even after they demanded that we take care of our own border first before we consider providing any funding to Ukraine and our other allies.

My colleagues and I remain ready to address the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security and to work toward building a modern immigration system that reflects the realities of the world we live in today and advances the best interests of American families, businesses, and communities.

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this amendment raises serious constitutional issues. Punishing the Secretary is not the way to handle policy disputes. Unfortunately, this amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Safe Mobility Offices are strategically situated in Central and South America and intended to be an alternative way for individuals to seek lawful pathways to the United States other than the dangerous journey that many migrants resort to in an effort to flee from persecution or dangerous conditions.

They are good, commonsense policies. My colleague across the aisle may be interested to know that these offices are also a useful tool in combating illegal border crossings.

Globally, we are facing the greatest displacement of people since World War II. That is why these offices are also in partnership with Canada and Spain.

Let's talk about the effect this amendment would actually have on the Department of Homeland Security. Taking away options for lawful pathways only further burdens Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection with more encounters.

These Safe Mobility Offices enhance our security posture because they allow the vetting of individuals before they ever set foot on U.S. soil.

It also takes money out of the cartels' pockets because it prevents individuals from paying smugglers and coyotes thousands of dollars to get them through our borders.

Finally, it takes the burden off of our already jammed immigration courts that are managing over 3 million cases and counting.

I hear so often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about the chaos at the border, yet when the administration comes up with innovative solutions that aim to establish a more orderly, efficient, and less chaotic border environment, it is met with resistance, as demonstrated by amendments like this one that we are debating today.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, as a threshold matter, the underlying bill already includes a provision that would effectively end the current operation of the program referenced in this amendment.

That is because applicants must use the CBP One mobile app from abroad to submit information that is then used to conduct background checks. The majority's bill already includes a harmful provision that prevents the use of the CBP One app to facilitate the parole of migrants into the United States.

Setting aside the redundancy of this provision, it is worth spending a moment discussing the harmful impact of preventing this program to continue.

The parole process in place for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans provides the Department an opportunity to provide an alternative to the dangerous journeys that many migrants resort to taking to flee from persecution and dangerous conditions. It also enhances our security posture because it allows the Department to vet people before they arrive. It has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of these individuals being encountered between ports of entry at our southern border, which helps with having a more orderly and less chaotic border environment.

I really do wish my colleagues across the aisle, who talk all the time about wanting to secure the border, would start working with Democrats to provide DHS the resources it needs and stop trying to prevent it from executing programs that are actually working.

Instead of ending programs that are reducing chaos at the border, we should be discussing how to build upon the successes of these efforts.

Once again, this amendment has no chance of being enacted. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government the sole authority to control immigration and secure the Nation's border. That includes determining who is allowed to enter the country and how the borders are to be secured. This is for a good reason. It is critical that we have uniformity and consistency in our immigration and border security policies across all States.

The Federal Government protects our national interests while maintaining positive relationships with neighboring countries. With this amendment, we are placing Border Patrol in the unfortunate position of being unable to properly secure the border where a State independently constructs or allows the construction of border barriers, such as a wall or fencing.

Furthermore, this amendment would impede CBP's ability to carry out its mission. CBP has indicated it would have challenges if this language were enacted.

For example, this provision would present an extreme life and safety risk to asylum seekers and other migrants who may need to be rescued. Border Patrol agents and CBP air and marine officers regularly save migrants from drowning. Preventing the removal of concertina wire or other structures on the border will cause an increase in drowning deaths, which would further place our law enforcement officers and agents at risk.

Mr. Chair, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, while I can support additional funding for DHS components in fiscal year 2025, I must respectfully oppose this amendment. We are debating increasing a multibillion dollar agency by a miniscule amount at the detriment of the Office of the Secretary which is consistently under attack by this majority.

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management has already been cut by 23 percent.

Mr. Chair, I support the men and women of CBP, but let's not continue with these amendments to message the majority's opposition to the Biden administration on the backs of the other career public servants this amendment will undoubtedly impact.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the use of facial recognition technology, which is still a fairly new capability, requires robust oversight and internal controls, including a privacy impact assessment by DHS's privacy office.

I know that the Department of Homeland Security and TSA have been taking important steps in that direction, including departmentwide governance policies and allowing travelers going through TSA checkpoints to opt out of the use of this technology.

More work needs to be done to address the potential for biases and inaccuracies in the facial recognition algorithms, particularly regarding their ability to accurately recognize individuals from different demographic groups, as well as ensuring that travelers are aware of their rights to opt out of the facial recognition screening process.

However, I believe we should continue to lean in to address these challenges to ensure the appropriate protections and safeguards are in place while also embracing and investing in modern solutions that not only strengthen our security and expedite the traveler experience with DHS, but also improve the lives of everyday Americans.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Chair, first, we should all support sensible steps to reduce the government's greenhouse gas emissions. Electric vehicles have the potential to significantly improve Federal fleet efficiency and reduce vehicle operation and maintenance costs.

Prohibiting the Department from buying one type of cutting-edge technology just because some of my colleagues want to score political points and continue to deny the existence of climate change is shameful and impractical. Transitioning our Federal fleet to electric vehicles where possible is not part of some woke agenda. It is a matter of practicality, risk mitigation, efficiency, and safety.

I support these efforts, and I believe the American people support the cost savings, cleaner air, new jobs, and healthy environmental future that will come with working to achieve our climate goals.

This amendment is just another partisan policy rider that gets us no closer to a final enacted bill for the Department before the close of the fiscal year.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, there is probably no agency in the Department that interacts with everyday Americans, our constituents, more than the Transportation Security Administration.

TSA's interaction with the traveling public is one that should reinforce TSA's commitment to the safety and security of the traveler and their experience with TSA. That is not just limited to screening baggage. It means respecting all travelers, including travelers from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and the LGBTQIA+ community. TSA's recognition of inclusivity should be celebrated, not handicapped.

Whether this majority wants to accept it or not, we are a diverse nation. That is what makes us great. This amendment is simply another pointless culture war and a waste of our time. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This amendment would further cut funding from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management beyond the damaging cuts already included in the majority's base bill. The bill already eliminates funding for the Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman and for the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. It slashes funding for family reunification efforts and includes several undefined cuts to contracts, travel, personnel, and other base activities.

It includes no additional funding for much-needed investments in the Department's electronic health records management system, nor does the bill address the growth and workload for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

The bill also withholds important investments in the new Office of Homeland Security Statistics, which should serve as the foundation of evidence-based decisionmaking across the Department's diverse set of mission responsibilities.

This amendment would require deeper cuts that will further harm important priorities. For example, the Office of Health Security is funded within this account, and it provides employee wellness and suicide prevention services for the Department's workforce. This account also provides funding for child well-being specialists to oversee the care of kids in CBP custody, ensuring they receive the proper level of care and helping to ensure that Border Patrol agents are able to prioritize their primary law enforcement duties.

Mr. Chair, amendments like this are unserious and unhelpful. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It is absolutely disheartening to learn that any Member of Congress

would actively work to undermine voting rights in this country. Yet, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are demonstrating that House Republicans have no regard for democracy and no desire to uphold every American's right to vote.

That is why the majority is so desperate to draw district lines to choke out the voices of vulnerable and underrepresented Americans. Now, with this amendment, we see another one of their tactics, which is cruel and un-American. It is an antidemocratic provision by the majority, this time seeking to suppress access to voting and removing steps the administration is taking to ensure that our elections are fair and free from outside influence.

Executive Order No. 14019 on voting access will help ensure that all Americans can exercise their right to vote, such as voters in underserved communities, voters who are younger and older, rural and urban, new citizens, servicemembers and veterans, Native Americans, voters with disabilities, and voters with language access concerns.

Every Member of this body should support these ideals. While the amendment would allow the administration to continue these actions for servicemembers, voters with disabilities, and Native Americans, it would remove such efforts for other populations. That should tell my colleagues everything they need to know about their real intentions.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, also known as CISA, is funded through this legislation. CISA plays a critical role in election security. For example, the Agency is working with the Department of Justice to combat the increased threats to election officials and election workers. How is that a bad thing?

Honestly, I cannot comprehend how anyone who holds public office in our country could possibly support an amendment that attacks the very foundation of our democracy. This amendment does nothing more than threaten the integrity of our electoral process by limiting CISA's ability to ensure safe and secure elections for all U.S. citizens.

Mr. Chair, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8752, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cole, for his leadership throughout the fiscal year 2025 process and his support as we continue to take conservative appropriations bills to the floor.

I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Underwood, who worked with us in good faith on the bill despite some disagreements on policy. I thank them for the opportunity to kick off this appropriations season, if you will, and I am looking forward to getting started here.

Lastly, I express my gratitude to the staff on both sides for their tireless efforts. As we all know, without them, this would be a pretty tough thing and a much different thing to do.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is the border. It is the border. It is the border. We have heard about messaging. We have heard about managing, all of that sort of stuff, and still here we are.

The bill under consideration this morning provides $64.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. When we hear about turning our backs, that is an increase of $2.9 billion above the fiscal year 2024 level.

The bill prioritizes investments that make the border--remember, it is about the border--more secure and makes appropriate cuts to policies and programs that, quite frankly, we don't think work.

When we talk about value judgments and stuff like that, if you think the record on the southern border has been a successful thing for immigration, we respectfully disagree.

We have heard from the professionals in the field, our Border Patrol agents and CBP officers who are being crushed dealing with, dare I say, an unprecedented flow of migrants day after day. This bill supports them through real policy change, not just words.

Our colleagues across the aisle are content to treat the border crisis as an issue that can be managed. They throw huge sums of money at a problem the failed policies created. It does not work.

What do I mean? You have the flow across the border, and now it has become a problem everywhere else in the country.

What do school districts do? What do housing people do? What do law enforcement people do? It is fair to focus on the border, but the impacts are not just this is just kind of that deal there.

Law enforcement professionals don't want to manage the border; they want to enforce the law. They want to enforce not the law that we are talking about recently, but they want to enforce the law that has been on the books for a long time.

Dare I say there are some executive orders that may put the interpretation of the law at issue. They want to enforce the law for us to change the course, to end the chaos. If you think what is happening there is a nice, calm thing and it just needs more resources for management, I respectfully disagree.

My colleagues want to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to nonprofit organizations for transportation and other services that only further incentivizes the immigration rush we have got. If you can get across, we will take it from there, and what ``we will take it'' means is giving additional services for transportation.

Do nonprofits reduce encounters or deter anyone from crossing illegally? No, they don't. This enables all that, so we cut funding for that program.

You have heard about border management and shelter services. That is a couple of billion dollars. The numbers are right. Quite frankly, that is one of the funding sources that has been used to transport people all around the country, sometimes on airlines, sometimes in the middle of the night, but nonetheless to manage--we have got all these people here, and we have got to get them spread out as soon as possible.

Madam Chair, it is time for plain talk. We zero that account out. Oh, my God, you did what? Yep. Do any of us think the Senate will leave it at zero? No.

While we are talking about our colleagues in the Senate, this bill last year got zip in the way of--how about this policy or that policy. None. It is a big win for you, I guess, if you are on that side of the fence.

Guess what? We are going to create some things where if you want some

money back for that and you want it restricted so it isn't a slush fund to implement policies that are not on the books in terms of statute or regulation, then guess what, that is zeroed out, as are all of the funds for nonprofits. The criticism there is spot on. It is all seen as a way to facilitate huge amounts of people coming over and processing them away from the border as soon as possible.

It is not border cities. They are hardened or whatever; not that they don't need help. It is cities and counties across the country. The answer, according to 3 years' worth of record-high illegal immigration, in our opinion, is a resounding no, so we cut that funding.

Last year, CBP recorded 3.2 million encounters. To put it in perspective, that is about 11 times the population of the largest city in my district. That is just at the southern border in 1 year.

Last year, we funded $1.7 billion for tents to process an unprecedented number of aliens that continue to cross between ports of entry under this administration's open-border policies.

Has spending billions of taxpayer dollars for processing tents along the southern border just to release aliens into the interior at a rapid pace reduced illegal immigration at all? Quite the contrary. In this bill, we eliminated that funding.

In the middle of an election year, the administration just announced a proclamation to shut down the border if encounters between the ports of entry reach a certain level. We have been beyond those levels for a while now. That is quite an announcement.

I heard somebody earlier speak about this is about messaging. I guess in some areas, it is absolutely about messaging.

Oh, by the way, all of those previous administration policies, such as shelter in place and stuff like that kind of kept things to a cooperative between two countries and at some sort of manageable level. No, those are all out the door at the beginning of this. That is why this bill invests in tried-and-true methods of securing the border that men and women in the field are asking for: more agents, more detention beds, more technology, and--I know this is bad--physical barriers.

This bill makes the following border security investment: sustains funding for 22,000 Border Patrol agents, $300 million for border security technology, which is a record in that area if somebody thinks anybody is turning their back on anybody. That includes autonomous surveillance towers, mobile surveillance platforms, counter-tunnel equipment, and a significant investment in counter-drone capability. There is $600 million for a border wall because we know physical barriers work. Finally, there is $305 million in nonintrusive inspection equipment and upgrades so that we can detect fentanyl at our ports of entry. That is right. This bill does that.

In addition to our efforts at the border, the bill includes funding for critical immigration enforcement efforts such as $3.1 billion to support 50,000 detention beds for ICE. This is 8,500 more beds than were funded last year and 16,000 more than this administration asked for.

Yes, we have a disagreement on how many is enough.

There is $822 million for flights and ground transportation for ICE to execute its statutory authority to remove more than 1.4 million migrants who are still in this country despite having final orders of removal. In case anybody didn't catch that, that is to transport people south, not north, east, and west.

There is $60 million to hire more than 250 new law enforcement officers to investigate transnational criminal activity and keep our communities safe from those who seek to do us harm. Translation: fentanyl. Those folks are here to work that issue which, last I heard, was evasive, pervasive, and needs more help.

The bill also makes critical investments outside the southern border. For TSA we provide $178 million to speed up computed tomography screening device efforts at the Nation's airports. This is new technology that is available that has been rolled out at some airports, but, frankly, the administration had it on a 15-year funding cycle. By the time all of our airports get that, I am sure there will be new and better technology that will make this obsolete.

What does the bill do, Madam Chairman?

It puts it on a 5-year cycle. It gets that out to the airports and makes the flying public safer. We doubled the requested amount to pursue those things.

Then we get to China. As we continue to grow in terms of having to meet the challenge of China's military, economic, and political influence in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. must have a persistent presence in the region.

This bill expands Coast Guard operations in the Indo-Pacific with additional capacity and capability to include $335 million for four fast response cutters to increase deployments in the region, $60 million for service life extension to enable the Coast Guard to deploy another medium endurance cutter, and $4.2 million for increased operations funds for the Coast Guard to interact and conduct exercises with our allies in the Indo-Pacific so that we are ready to go if we need to because we practiced with our friends.

The bill funds the core responsibilities of the department and protects the homeland. What it doesn't do is fund the failed policies that further contribute to chaos at our southern border.

Madam Chairman, that is how you really support the hardworking men and women of DHS protecting the Nation.

We need to change course on the border. We sincerely believe that. Interestingly enough, so do many mayors of large cities across the Nation regardless of their political affiliation.

We need to change that course not through gimmicks but through real policy and funding changes. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1316, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, the bipartisan en bloc amendment before you is comprised of 28 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

This en bloc amendment contains proposals that will strengthen the underlying bill. I want to highlight just a few.

It would provide additional funding to bolster investigations for exploited children within Secret Service and Homeland Security Investigations.

It highlights the Coast Guard's ongoing need for assets, infrastructure, and maintenance funding. It emphasizes the importance of nonintrusive inspection equipment for CBP ports of entry to improve detection of fentanyl and other opioids that plague communities across our country.

It increases funds for FEMA grant programs for firefighters and other first responders and highlights the importance of grants that fund physical security improvements for nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attack.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their participation in this process, I urge Members to support this bipartisan en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my colleague.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, here is a little history, and you can use it however you like.

In the 2024 appropriations bill, we cut CISA $15 million, and it was because of this switchboarding issue. I agree that sometimes you want to get somebody's attention. Appropriations is money. That was done this last time.

As we look at what this agency has been doing since then--and I appreciate the history. The history is strong and warrants attention, and I think we dealt with that the last time. Oversight is an ongoing and continuing thing. When I sit here and look at this and say: We are going to flat fund them. That is the proposal. I say: Well, how are you going to do that? Where is that funding going to come from?

Just the standard, there you go, you are flat funded, at a time when their mission domestically in terms of infrastructure, whether that is utilities, communications or any number of things--I mean, in the media, it is like if you are going to buy a car, somebody hacked the outfit that does all that cyber stuff to make it easier to do. If you are going to go to a casino, those folks have been hacked.

The mission is growing. You say: Well, who is the mission? What is that about? That is not about our friends, Mr. Chair. That is about folks who do not wish us well, so Russians, Chinese, all that other sort of stuff.

I would be more comfortable with this if there was a trigger saying, if we fund that and you do this, we are going to come and get some money. I would be more comfortable with this if it were like: Here is where you are going to take it from. It is a funny time to be telling the folks who are in charge of cybersecurity in the non-DOD sectors: We are going to flat fund you. I do not believe that money is the answer to every problem that we come across. This mission has never been more challenging.

I think the oversight has been good under this Director, and quite frankly, from recent history they are headed the right way. It doesn't mean you take your eyes off of them. To go back and say you are flat funded, quite frankly, I think it is a curious time.

Mr. Chair, reluctantly, I don't support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the Shelter and Services Program is a failed program. It does nothing but facilitate the administration's self- created policy crisis on our border.

It is interesting to hear the discussions in terms of now that they are here, we should do something and skip over the whole issue of what has happened in the last 36 months?

It is undeniable that the numbers are significantly larger. Once you are here, we have to focus on what we do.

When you look at shelter services, we are renting tents. By the way, it is a single vendor. It is not even put out for bid. We spend over a billion something a year just for tents.

While it is nice to talk about how we should be good stewards of whoever happens to show up, to ignore how they came to be here in such massive numbers in the last 36 months, to me, it is a bit--and you can fill in the blank.

What began as a $30 million effort has ballooned to a $650 million grab bag for nongovernmental organizations to swiftly resettle migrants across the border illegally into our country.

Even large city Democrat mayors are screaming: We can't sustain this. We should not be spending money on programs that incentivize illegal immigration.

This amendment would directly undercut border security by reducing funds for border wall construction by $600 million.

The men and women in the field have told us walls work, and it is time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to accept that fact.

This amendment would also cut immigration enforcement efforts by $100 million. Somebody earlier said: Hey, we are turning our backs on Border Patrol. Really? A hundred million bucks is a pretty good look at somebody's back.

That significantly reduces our ability to remove these migrants that no longer have a legal basis to remain in the country.

Remember the backlog that requires over a million dollars to get folks who have failed the test for claiming asylum.

By the way, there are those who pose a risk. I won't repeat what other people have and will talk about. Instead of allowing this administration to continue to positively manage the unmitigated flow of migrants entering our country without consequence, this bill proposes funding and policies that address the crisis by empowering Federal agents and officers to do their jobs and not spend money on folks that enable a political agenda of this administration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, clearly, this is one of the differences between the two sides of the aisle.

This amendment is a double whammy. It weakens the border through lack of physical investment, physical improvement, and capital improvement.

I agree with what my colleague from Illinois said. They can't handle it with the present levels of funding with what is coming across the border. The last thing we need to do is try to put more money into dealing with self-imposed impacts that are avoidable.

I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1316 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.

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

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. 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. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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. 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).

I think it is very obvious to every American.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I ask my friend and colleague from Colorado if he has additional speakers or if he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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. 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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Do you honestly believe that this homeland appropriations bill that we are considering, the funding bill, that it would ameliorate that crisis?

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

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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, many people may not know this, but NBC News recently reported that more than 400 illegal aliens who are affiliates of ISIS were released into the United States under this administration's watch. They have caught some of them, but they still have a significant number of them out.

Do you know what they said? Gee, if we could have enforced the law, we wouldn't have released them into the country, and we could have rounded them up and prevented them from ever getting into the country.

The reason I bring that up is because I am speaking in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and the expenses of the position of the DHS Secretary.

Who is the DHS Secretary? Who is this individual? It is the person who has been the architect of the open-border policy.

I think one of my colleagues from Florida, who was on the floor here just a moment ago, said it is a fictional invasion. Really? It is 10 million people in 2\1/2\, 3 years. They started setting records when? February 2021. They have set records every month since. Who is in charge of that? Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary.

In fact, this body was so disenchanted with his policies that we impeached Secretary Mayorkas. When he was confronted with: Do you have operational control of the border? He said, in a Judiciary hearing, you know what, hey, we don't like that. First, he said, yes, we have operational control. We gave him the statute. Are you at operational control? Well, you know, we basically devised our own definition.

That is the person who is occupying the Homeland Security chair right now, and they have incentivized literally millions of people to come into this country. That is the lawlessness that has brought people to their knees in many communities around this country.

We are still trying to get information from the DHS and the Department of Defense about the terrorists who attempted to infiltrate Quantico just about 6 weeks ago.

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

Mr. Chair, I get a kick when I hear Democrats say that the so-called bipartisan bill out of the Senate would have solved this problem. Do you know what that bill did? It granted amnesty. Do you know what it did? It set a floor of 2,500 illegal aliens every day who get to come in.

Guess what else it did? They provided loophole after loophole. There is no limit on unaccompanied children, and hundreds of thousands have come in. They have misplaced over 100,000 now. They are just so irresponsible.

We heard people talk about an ineffective and outdated policy. Do you know what worked? That ineffective and outdated policy. Do you know why? Because it secured the border.

We had the most secure border in about, I don't know, our Nation's history under President Trump. When they came in, President Biden issued 93 EOs. Guess what? You have a mass invasion on the border.

What is it called? They called it a useless border wall. Do you know who voted for that border wall originally? That is right, people like Hillary Clinton. They voted for that border wall. They don't want a border wall.

I have on my phone images from the Tucson sector of people dressed in camo bringing drugs across interdicted just the other day. Do you know why they were going near the San Miguel gate, which I have taken colleagues to before? Because there is no fence. In Arizona, we largely have no fences.

Here is the deal: This Homeland Security Secretary is the one who gave us this policy.

I can say what I heard from these people. I can say what they said: ineffective, outdated policies. They said these people are legally entitled to refugee status.

Under what law? Under international law. How about the first safe nation law? They are required to obey that. Guess what? That is what the U.S. law is, as well--the first safe harbor, the first safe state. That is where someone who wants refugee status comes in, but they are not seeking refugee status. They are seeking asylum.

Do you know who sought asylum? The two outrageous murderers who just murdered that 12-year-old girl in Houston. They were released under asylum requests. They went and had the cartel cut off their ankle bracelets.

That is what is happening. That is why this Secretary, this position, which we are defunding correctly under the Holman rule, should not be funded, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits funding from being used to implement the DHS 2022 rule that allows illegal aliens to receive more government subsidies.

Under our immigration law, one ground of inadmissibility for aliens is if they are likely to become a public charge. That is in the statute. That is to say, if they are going to be a financial burden to the American people due to the likelihood that they will rely on public assistance programs, they are inadmissible.

However, in 2022, the DHS weakened this rule by excluding a whole host of government benefit programs, including Medicaid.

What does this mean?

First, it gives the Biden administration more excuses to allow millions of illegal aliens into the country by doing away with one standard that would legally disqualify many people.

Second, it allows the Biden administration to explicitly pay illegal aliens to be in the country with taxpayer dollars, which has always been their plan.

Third, it creates a major pull factor or incentive for people who are thinking of crossing the border to actually cross the border illegally.

There is evidence of this. Just talk to the people crossing the border. I have. I have gone down to the border many times. I take people with me, Members of Congress, all the time. When you ask people, they will say they heard the U.S. Government was going to pay them to be here--I have actually had people say this--and that they will take me where I want to go.

Why wouldn't they say that? It is true.

Can someone tell me any policy by this administration that discourages illegal aliens from entering the country? There is not one serious policy that actually deters immigration.

This is why we must vote to end this open border DHS rule and stop giving Federal dollars to illegal aliens.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Senate bill that my colleagues love so much didn't ever make it over here. It didn't make cloture twice in the Senate. My colleagues can continue to yell and scream, but we passed H.R. 2, which is laying over there in Chuck Schumer's lap, who is refusing to move it.

Let's talk a little bit about this cruel and inhumane business. Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know what is cruel? How about for those who live in Yuma, Arizona, where the community has one hospital. There is one hospital. When there is an emergency, they don't have enough beds for you if you are a citizen because they are dealing with illegal aliens who have flooded that hospital.

That is cruel and inhumane. Do my colleagues know what happens? They air evac citizens to Phoenix or San Diego. That is cruel and inhumane.

Does the minority know what happens? Let's say a citizen is pregnant. That maternity ward has 10 beds in it at Yuma. Most of the time, it is filled with illegal aliens who have come in.

We just heard a lot about money, about this benefit. There are others who assert the exact opposite. The one thing that we do know for sure that everybody agrees on, right and left, if my colleagues actually talk to people who know something: There are remittances well in excess of $100 billion a year that go out from illegal aliens in this country. It is a cash flow.

If my colleagues talk to leaders from the Central American States or even representatives from Mexico, they are going to tell Members what the cash flow is that those remittances provide for them. In Mexico, it is the number two leading cash flow for them.

They come here because these individuals are incentivized to come here, in part, because of the public charge that we allow them to be on. That is why this amendment is crucial. If someone who is in this country illegally should not be here and is receiving benefits, should they receive the more than 90 social welfare benefits that this country, the Federal Government, provides?

This administration has loosened the number of those benefits that are available to illegal aliens. That should not happen. We have a public charge rule. If you come in legally, you can't get in, but my colleagues are wanting to say: Well, if you are here illegally, that is okay.

Good grief. This is the statute. We are reverting to the statute that worked. That is why this amendment is critical.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.