Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and "imminent danger" posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who have seized control of our southern border.

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

First of all, I thank Chairwoman Kay Granger and Ranking Member DeLauro for working together as much as possible. I certainly would thank our chairman, David Joyce. I know we have some disagreements, but at the end of this process, we are going to be working together making sure that the Homeland Security bill passes in a bipartisan way.

Democrats and Republicans had a deal when we passed the debt bill some months ago. Now our colleagues, the House Republicans, are backing away from this deal and yielding to some extreme demands that will not help border security.

Now the House remains in chaos as the Republicans have been infighting and that will all but guarantee a government shutdown at the hands of the far right in just a few days. Instead of working on a bipartisan continuing resolution that will keep the government open, one that will pass both Chambers and be signed into law, we are here talking about bills that are not going to go very far in the Senate.

Again, I want to make sure that people understand that we want to work together. We want to make this a bipartisan bill to get it done.

As the ranking member of Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee and as a Member that actually lives on the border, I am very concerned about ensuring that the border is secure and that the Department has the resources it needs to do that successfully. Instead of that, what are we doing? If we have a shutdown, we are going to have over 226 folks, employees from the Department of Homeland Security, that are going to continue to work for a period of time and not get paid, and, again, that is not the way to create morale for our Border Patrol and other agents that we have down there at the border.

I strongly support the hiring of additional agents, but, if there is a shutdown, what is going to happen is that this will prevent us from onboarding the anticipated 150 additional agents in October. It would also stop the recruitment and vetting efforts that impact CBP ability to onboard additional agents later on. We cannot have a shutdown, and we have got to make sure that we work together to prevent the shutdown itself.

Now, if you look at the bill itself, the proposed bill, let's look at a couple of things. Yes, we did have some bipartisan investments and oversight requirements that we worked together on, but there are certain funding decisions and policy riders that I cannot support at this moment.

We have to understand the border. Some of my colleagues don't understand the border, and they call it a war zone. If my colleagues look at the criminal records or the criminal figures that we have, whether it is murder, rape, assault, the border is actually safer than so many other parts of the country. In fact, Washington, D.C., is about two or three times more dangerous, if you want to look at those figures, than the border community.

Now, when it comes to migration issues, yes, we do have a problem, and we do need to address it, but I think we need to stop playing defense on the 1-yard line, which is the U.S.-Mexico border.

What we need to do is extend the perimeter where we can work with partners like Mexico, Central America, South America to make sure that we provide that perimeter and stop folks before they come over to our border itself. This bill has some very outdated strategies, and one of them I know doesn't work, and I will call that the 14th century solution to a 21st century problem, which is the border wall. We are spending $2.1 billion, or we intend to spend $2.1 billion on a wall that really doesn't stop. If I can show you some of the figures, I will explain why.

If you look at the border wall, you will see that the fence is in many parts of the border itself, but if you see the heat maps where people are coming into the border, it is usually where the border fence is at.

If I can show south Texas as an example, you will see that, in south Texas, you have a fence, and if you see the heat map, we have a fence here, we have a fence here, we have a fence here, we have a fence there, we have a fence there, and so on, but the activity is where the fence is at.

Let me explain why. If you look at the fence, we have a river. The middle of the river is actually the U.S. boundary with Mexico. We don't have a fence there. If you look at the riverbanks, we don't have a fence there also because it is going to get washed away.

What we do is we actually put a fence about a quarter of a mile or sometimes even a half a mile away, and what happens, you see the fence here, the one in the red itself, and then you see the river over here. Instead of having a fence over here, it is actually put a quarter mile or a mile away. Therefore, what happens when you have this situation?

Well, first of all, if you are asking for asylum, like most people are asking, you are going to see people that will touch the riverbank. They walked half a mile or a quarter of a mile to the fence over here and asked for asylum, so does the fence stop them? No, it doesn't.

If you asked all those landowners, they will say, you are ceding away thousands and thousands of acres of good farming land, good ranching land, because you put the fence here and the river is over here.

Again, if you want to stop drugs, I know we added some money for technology, but we have got to have the money at the ports of entry where 90 to

94 percent of the meth, the fentanyl, the cocaine are coming in, instead of through this particular area

Again, this bill also has no funding for USCIS that would help reduce the backlog of the migration, so the people that have been waiting for a while, we are not putting any resources in for the USCIS. We have got to make sure that we help the folks who are trying to come in the legal way.

We do lose a lot of opportunities. We can do a lot more to add money to counter the fentanyl, the opioids. Again, most drugs will come in through the ports of entry, and that is where we need to put the focus.

Finally, also, we should have an updated border security improvement plan.

Again, I certainly want to work with my good friend, Mr. Joyce. We are going to be together later on in the process. I know we have got some disagreements, but we will get there.

With that, I hope that we have a good bipartisan bill at the end of the process.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and we have no further speakers.

Mr. Chair and to my good colleague, Mr. Joyce, we are apart right now. I know we are going to get together, but I do want to remind some of our colleagues that we had an opportunity under the current bill that we have right now. We added in the last couple years $2.4 billion. That is a 15 percent increase for border patrol agents, pay increases, add more Border Patrol agents, ICE, CBP, the other folks in.

We had the moneys to do that, but at the end of the day--and I will just take one example--we gave money to Homeland, a 15 percent increase, yet there are only two Members--when we all voted--on the Republican side that actually supported the appropriations bill, Homeland. So if we care so much about Homeland, why did we vote ``no'' on the final appropriations bill?

I know some of us are going to vote ``no,'' and I am voting ``no'' on this one, but on the final one, I will support the final appropriations bill.

The other thing is as the Democratic leader, Mr. Jeffries, said, we have 3 days to work this out, and by passing this bill to the Senate it is not going to get there. I would just like to remind Members that we ought to be working on preventing the shutdown.

If you look at the shutdowns that we have had since the 1990s, in 1995 it was a Republican House that had a 5-day shutdown. That was November 13, 1995. On December 15, 1995, there was another Republican- led House with 21 days of a shutdown. Then on September 30, 2013, again, for 16 days it was a Republican-led House that allowed the shutdown. Then on January 19, 2018, another Republican-led House shutdown lasted for 2 days. Then on December 21, 2018, there was another Republican-led House shutdown for 34 days.

So, again, I hope that on Saturday or on Sunday at 12:01 there is not another Republican-led shutdown. We are asking you please give us input. Let's sit down. Let's talk about it. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Joyce and his staff. I know we can do this together. We will be voting ``no'' on this, but I know at the end of this process we will be voting together on this on a ``yes'' bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this en bloc amendment. It contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of the Members' priorities on both sides. This is the way we ought to do it--bipartisan. Certainly, I have no objection, and I encourage adoption of this amendment because it supports shared priorities, including counter fentanyl detention, Border Patrol checkpoints and ports of entry, investigations for missing and exploited children, and more technology for the frontline officers and agents.

Mr. Chair, I support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, this is a bipartisan amendment. I support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

There are already avenues for victims of crime to engage with both the Department of Homeland Security's Victims Engagement and Services Line or the Department of Justice's Office of Victims of Crime. The Department of Homeland Security has protection for victims, and the Department of Justice also has the Office of Victims of Crime.

This office would be duplicative of those efforts and would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. We are doing that already. Frankly, when you say this, you are basically taking the position that crime only occurs when you have a migrant.

The stats do not support this conclusion. In fact, the Department of Justice released a study in 2020 and found that undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across the range of felony offenses.

I don't care where the attack came from. I want to support the victims. I want to support the victims, and that is what the Department of Justice's Office of Victims of Crime does. Let's support that office and provide it more funding.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Again, the Department of Justice Office of Victims of Crime supports everybody. They don't ask you where the crime came in. They will support you. This office would be duplicative of those efforts and would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Let the Victims Engagement and Services Line office and the Office of Victims of Crime do their job. Let's make sure that they get the support.

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

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

I understand what my colleague is talking about. We do want to make sure that we address border issues, but we have to make sure that we address it in the right way.

I will talk about the report. In fact, I will be happy to tell you that I also get frustrated sometimes when we don't get the reports, and I will be happy to work with you and with the chairman to get you that report.

I will tell you that in the bill already, there is a $25 million hold for this report. If you add another $10 million, does that make the pain more painful?

Keep in mind that this account doesn't just fund bureaucracy. It also funds suicide prevention efforts and other health security measures. It funds child welfare professionals for tender-age kids in DHS custody. It funds the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also.

I also get frustrated when we don't get the report. If you add another $30 million, another $40 million, will that get you there?

You mentioned the border. Keep in mind that we are concerned, and I want to make sure that we control our border. If you want to stop drugs, as one of our colleagues said, most drugs will come in through ports of entry, but we are not putting the emphasis on ports of entry.

We need to do a lot more, more canines, more technology. If you want to look at the people who are illegally here, I remind everybody that the number one violator for visa overstays, which have been millions over the years, has been Canada. I don't hear any of you talking about putting a wall between the U.S. and Canada. I say that because, again, we have to be smart on how we address it.

I invite you down to the border. I love when people come in and spend a few hours. I live there, and I will tell you, I will take the biggest cities in your State--I would say if you take Atlanta and, on the border, I take Laredo, murder, rape, and assault, we have lower crime rates than the city, per 100,000. If you look at the national crime rate for murders, the border crime rate is lower.

We have to look at crime as one issue and then look at migration. I am with you. I hate open borders. I want to make sure that we work together, but we have to do this in a bipartisan way.

I feel their frustration. There are some reports I wish we could get faster. I will work with them and the chairman to get this report to them.

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

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

The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government the sole authority to control immigration and secure the national borders.

I would say that if we would do this in partnership, working with the State and local government, like we do with the program that we started called Stonegarden where we provide funding, that would be the way to do it. Unfortunately, there are some States that want to go solo on doing certain things.

Let me give you an explanation. When the Governor from the State of Texas put out the buoys, those buoys were less than a quarter of a mile for a river that is 1,200 miles. Less than a quarter of a mile for a river that is 1,200 miles long is like putting a postage stamp in the middle of a football

field to stop a running back from crossing the 1-yard line.

The second thing is, when the Governor has talked about stopping every truck like he is doing, what he is doing is--he said he is inspecting every truck. I used to do the budget for the DPS. The only thing they can do is check license plates, driver's licenses, or the brakes and windshield wipers. They can't even open the trucks.

What they are doing is, in Eagle Pass, in El Paso, and other places, they are stopping millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of trade itself. Again, we want to work with the States, but you just can't go solo on this.

Again, when you say lawlessness at the border, I would say in the State of Texas, if you look at the most dangerous cities that we have, none of them are on the border. I am not going to name any of my Texas cities, but they are the big urban areas, per 100,000, where murder, rape, and assault are a lot higher than at the border. Again, the border is safe when we talk about crime.

On the issue of migration, I am with you. We need to have repercussions, but we need to put money outside the 1-yard line and put it on the 20-yard line and work with other countries.

In fact, when you look at 2015, when President Obama had the numbers go down, it was because Mexico was stopping people. In 2019, when President Trump was taking credit for stopping the numbers and having the lowest crossings, do you know why? Because we got Mexico to do its job on the southern border.

Again, we can either play defense on the 1-yard line or we can play defense on the 20-yard line, and we have to look at this and how we address it.

If you want to talk about crime, look at the big urban cities. Do we want to make sure we secure the border? I am with you. We have to have repercussions. We have to make sure that we play defense outside the 1- yard line, but we can't have a State go solo.

They want to work with us? My brother was a DPS officer for 27 years. I want to make sure that they work with us hand in hand, and Stonegarden does that where we provide money to the cities, counties, and States.

We are on the same page. We are just looking at this in a very different way.

My good friend from my State of Texas, I am with him. I just oppose this particular amendment.

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

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 16: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Casten, Mr. Casar,

Mr. Sherman, Ms. Caraveo, and Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 33: Ms. Ross and Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 34: Ms. Escobar, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Nadler.

H.R. 56: Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 231: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 253: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 303: Mr. Kilmer.

H.R. 459: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 549: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Mrvan, Ms.

Escobar, Ms. Titus, Mr. Evans, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Espaillat,

Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Ms. Adams, Ms. Balint, Mr.

Owens, and Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 620: Mrs. Peltola.

H.R. 666: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 681: Ms. Wild, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms.

Balint, Ms.Crockett, and Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 700: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Latta, Mr. Kelly of

Mississippi, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Mr.

Harder of California, and Mrs. Steel.

H.R. 722: Mr. Barr.

H.R. 770: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 795: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 807: Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Bucshon,

and Mr. Soto.

H.R. 809: Mr. Posey and Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 866: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 873: Mr. Nehls.

H.R. 906: Mr. Steube and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 972: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1073: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1088: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1118: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1138: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1139: Mr. Newhouse, Mr. DesJarlais, and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1150: Ms. Jayapal and Mr. Moylan.

H.R. 1191: Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.

Jackson of Illinois, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 1200: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 1235: Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 1250: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1259: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 1277: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms.

Porter, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Casten, Mrs.

Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. DesJarlais, Ms. Norton,

Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Craig, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mrs. Dingell,

Mr. Morelle, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,

Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Barragan, and Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 1278: Mr. Moulton.

H.R. 1290: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1295: Mr. Schiff.

H.R. 1318: Ms. Titus and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1385: Ms. Pingree and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 1432: Mr. Davis of Illinois.

H.R. 1437: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 1447: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1483: Mr. Raskin.

H.R. 1488: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Horsford.

H.R. 1503: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1517: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1535: Mr. Davis of North Carolina and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1555: Mr. Cardenas.

H.R. 1572: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Harder

of California, Mr. Raskin, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Posey,

and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1614: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1623: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1637: Mr. Ciscomani, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, and Mr.

Ryan.

H.R. 1638: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 1643: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 1679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1721: Ms. Crockett and Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1728: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1740: Mr. Allred.

H.R. 1758: Mr. Donalds.

H.R. 1763: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Moskowitz.

H.R. 1770: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 1777: Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Grothman, Mr.

Fleischmann, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1788: Mr. Phillips, Ms. Scholten, Ms. Spanberger, Ms.

McCollum, and Mr. Beyer.

H.R. 1831: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Grijalva.

H.R. 1841: Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 1842: Mr. Gallego.

H.R. 2365: Mr. Levin, Mr. Balderson, Ms. Caraveo, Ms.

Salinas, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Trone,

Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Leger Fernandez, and Mr.

Veasey.

H.R. 2367: Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Guest, Mr. Pappas, and Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 2370: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2389: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Trone, Ms. Sherrill, Mr.

Horsford, Ms. Ross, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Mrvan, Ms. McCollum, and

Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

H.R. 2406: Mr. Barr, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 2407: Mr. Burgess, Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, Mr. Mooney,

Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Nickel, and Mr. Castro of

Texas.

H.R. 2410: Mr. Nickel.

H.R. 2412: Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Landsman, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 2431: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer and Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 2510: Mr. Harder of California and Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2550: Ms. Leger Fernandez.

H.R. 2583: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Sewell,

and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 2630: Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Steube, Mr. Fitzpatrick,

and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.

H.R. 2667: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia and Mr. Aderholt.

H.R. 2697: Mr. Vargas and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 2700: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 2718: Ms. Blunt Rochester.

H.R. 2720: Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Blumenauer, and

Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 2723: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2739: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 2743: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. C. Scott

Franklin of Florida, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 2814: Mr. Moore of Utah.

H.R. 2855: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 2869: Mr. Mfume.

H.R. 2871: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 2891: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 2929: Mr. Pappas.

H.R. 2955: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Raskin, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2957: Mr. Morelle and Mr. Allred.

H.R. 2987: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 3007: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3029: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Miller of

West Virginia.

H.R. 3074: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Ms. Scanlon.

H.R. 3108: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3137: Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 3139: Mr. Ryan and Ms. Foxx.

H.R. 3145: Ms. Omar.

H.R. 3152: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. C.

Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Cline, Mr. Santos, Mr. Golden

of Maine, Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 3170: Mr. Pallone and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 3184: Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 3192: Ms. Slotkin.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Gooden of Texas.

H.R. 3235: Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 3251: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 3272: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3378: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3380: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3381: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Babin, Ms.

Malliotakis, Mr. Soto, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Trone, Ms.

Manning, Mr. Ciscomani, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Carey, and Ms.

Salazar.

H.R. 3394: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Scanlon, Ms.

Brownley, Ms. Ross, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Deluzio, Ms. Tlaib, and

Mr. Trone.

H.R. 3410: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3413: Ms. Chu, Ms. Greene of Georgia, and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 3424: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 3425: Mr. Tiffany and Ms. Manning.

H.R. 3448: Ms. Spanberger.

H.R. 3464: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 3468: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Salinas, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3473: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

H.R. 3488: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Velazquez.

H.R. 3492: Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida.

H.R. 3503: Mr. Lieu and Mr. Pocan.

H.R. 3518: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 3519: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 3530: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Swalwell,

Mr. Lieu, Ms. Ross, Mr. Neguse, and Mr. Schneider.

H.R. 3539: Mr. Crow and Mr. Molinaro.

H.R. 3549: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3576: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 3585: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 3589: Ms. Tokuda.

H.R. 3600: Mr. Larsen of Washington and Mr. Harder of

California.

H.R. 3601: Mr. Vargas, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3608: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 3618: Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 3662: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 3679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3681: Mr. Levin.

H.R. 3730: Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 3755: Mr. Smucker.

H.R. 3774: Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Soto, Mr.

Sherman, Ms.

Craig, and Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 3782: Mr. Fry and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 3792: Mr. Lieu, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Tony

Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Sherman, and

Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3838: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 3843: Mr. Pocan and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 3851: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3859: Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3867: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 3875: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 3876: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 3879: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 3882: Mr. Deluzio and Mr. Joyce of Ohio.

H.R. 3916: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Bice, Ms.

McClellan, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3923: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3949: Mr. Fry and Mr. Latta.

H.R. 3965: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3988: Mr. Good of Virginia.

H.R. 3990: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4007: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4024: Ms. Matsui.

H.R. 4034: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 4035: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4040: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4059: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4061: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4076: Mr. Peters.

H.R. 4118: Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4144: Mr. Yakym.

H.R. 4149: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 4157: Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Flood, and

Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4170: Ms. Ross and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 4174: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4175: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4183: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 4198: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4202: Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms.

Spanberger, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Torres of New

York, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Trone, Mr.

Garcia of Illinois, and Mr. Lynch.

H.R. 4238: Mr. Timmons.

H.R. 4241: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4249: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 4259: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 4262: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 4273: Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 4274: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4295: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 4314: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4328: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 4334: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bergman.

H.R. 4384: Ms. Manning.

H.R. 4395: Mr. Baird.

H.R. 4432: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4438: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 4466: Mr. McGarvey and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 4475: Mrs. Watson Coleman.

H.R. 4478: Mr. Mills.

H.R. 4514: Ms. Greene of Georgia.

H.R. 4534: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Connolly, Ms.

Clarke of New York, and Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4561: Mr. McGovern and Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4562: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4563: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 4566: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4577: Ms. Sherrill and Mr. Guest.

H.R. 4581: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 4587: Ms. Salazar and Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 4598: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4602: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 4612: Mr. Duarte and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 4624: Mr. Carson, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4663: Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 4702: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4728: Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 4729: Ms. De La Cruz and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 4733: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4745: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 4750: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 4758: Ms. Wexton, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Smucker, and Ms.

Barragan.

H.R. 4769: Ms. Scholten, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Garbarino, Mr.

Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Lawler, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr.

LaLota, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4779: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Payne, and Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4782: Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 4817: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 4844: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 4886: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4895: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Escobar, Mr.

Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Porter.

H.R. 4904: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4914: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 4919: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and

Mr. Frost.

H.R. 4921: Mrs. Miller of Illinois.

H.R. 4965: Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Ocasio-

Cortez, and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4970: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.

H.R. 5006: Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5008: Ms. Kamlager-Dove and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 5012: Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Williams of Georgia,

and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 5013: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5041: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 5094: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Womack.

H.R. 5107: Mr. Grothman.

H.R. 5110: Mrs. McClain, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Perez, Mr. Walberg,

Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Bost, Mr. Williams of New

York, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 5113: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 5130: Mr. Graves of Missouri.

H.R. 5136: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 5145: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 5159: Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. LaHood, Mr.

Fitzpatrick, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Larson of

Connecticut, Mr. Comer, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Boyle of

Pennsylvania, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 5169: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Thompson of

California, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 5171: Mr. Swalwell.

H.R. 5175: Ms. Norton, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr.

Moskowitz.

H.R. 5182: Mr. Fry and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5184: Mr. Fallon, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Meuser.

H.R. 5203: Mr. Mooney.

H.R. 5221: Ms. Eshoo.

H.R. 5233: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 5239: Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 5242: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5245: Mr. Issa and Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5247: Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 5249: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Carson, Ms.

Tokuda, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, and Mr. Case.

H.R. 5250: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 5252: Ms. Sherrill, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 5265: Mr. Stauber.

H.R. 5283: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 5290: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5291: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5292: Mr. Tonko, Ms. Bush, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5293: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5294: Ms. Bush and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5295: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5302: Mr. Waltz.

H.R. 5308: Mr. Costa and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 5318: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5323: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 5329: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 5342: Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Gooden of Texas, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 5349: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5351: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Veasey.

H.R. 5361: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 5368: Mr. Fry, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Mills.

H.R. 5369: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 5377: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5379: Mr. Norman.

H.J. Res. 88: Mr. Babin, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Miller-

Meeks, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Yakym, and Ms. Hageman.

H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Huffman.

H. Con. Res. 44: Mr. Casar.

H. Con. Res. 59: Ms. Sanchez.

H. Con. Res. 61: Ms. Waters, Mr. Moulton, Ms. DeGette, Mr.

Casten, Mr. Levin, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Clarke of New

York, Ms. McClellan, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Casar, Ms. Balint,

Ms. Salinas, and Mr. Pocan.

H. Res. 50: Mr. Mooney, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cloud, and Ms.

Van Duyne.

H. Res. 77: Mr. Lynch.

H. Res. 100: Mr. Walberg.

H. Res. 108: Mr. Mike Garcia of California.

H. Res. 154: Mr. Khanna.

H. Res. 198: Mrs. Fletcher.

H. Res. 339: Mr. Donalds.

H. Res. 345: Mr. Nadler.

H. Res. 374: Mr. Frost.

H. Res. 451: Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mrs. Miller of

Illinois, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Ms. Budzinski, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Sorensen.

H. Res. 492: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vasquez, Ms.

Stevens, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas,

Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Allred.

H. Res. 509: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H. Res. 585: Mrs. Torres of California, Ms. Lee of

California, and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H. Res. 615: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H. Res. 616: Mr. Peters, Mr. Keating, and Ms. Ross.

H. Res. 623: Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Trone.

H. Res. 625: Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Torres of New

York.

H. Res. 627: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mrs. Miller of Illinois,

Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Schiff, and Ms. Craig.

H. Res. 634: Ms. Schakowsky.

H. Res. 651: Mr. DesJarlais.

H. Res. 674: Mr. Moylan, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Posey, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Donalds, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr.

Crenshaw.

Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Texas and the all-American city of Laredo for yielding and for his continued leadership.

I also have great respect for the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the chair of the subcommittee, and of course the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee from Connecticut.

At the beginning of this Congress, House Democrats made it clear that we are willing, ready, and able to find common ground with the other side of the aisle, our Republican colleagues, whenever and wherever possible, to make progress for everyday Americans, to build a healthy economy, to address cost-of-living issues that consume the American people that we were sent to Washington to work on, that President Biden has made progress on with House and Senate Democrats, but of course, there is still more work to be done.

From the beginning of this Congress, House Democrats have made clear we are ready, willing, and able to find common ground with the other side of the aisle, to make progress for the American people, but we have also made it clear that we are going to fight extremism whenever necessary. We are headed toward an extreme MAGA Republican government shutdown in just a few days.

Now, we can avoid it, because there is a bipartisan bill that is working its way through the Senate right now that will continue to fund the government in a way that makes sense for the American people, that would provide funding at the fiscal year 2023 levels for 6 weeks beginning on October 1st, to give us time for the appropriations process to run its course, to find an agreement to fund the government in a bipartisan way.

It is a continuing resolution right now pending before the Senate, strongly bipartisan, that doesn't contain any of the extreme policy poison-pill riders that House Republicans have been trying to jam down the throats of the American people but have no part in any bipartisan agreement, particularly when we are faced with a possible government shutdown that will hurt the American people.

It is a continuing resolution that also meets the needs of everyday Americans by providing robust funding for Americans who have been adversely impacted by extreme weather events all across America in blue States and in red States, because extreme weather events aren't partisan in nature, and we should be there for the people of Florida and California and Hawaii and Vermont and the Northeast and the Midwest and the Deep South, those everyday Americans who have been impacted by extreme weather events.

That is what the bipartisan continuing resolution pending in the Senate will do, and it will allow the Ukrainian people to continue their brave, valiant, and courageous effort to push back against illegal Russian brutal, violent aggression.

We have a bipartisan continuing resolution working its way through the Senate that meets the needs of the American people. It has input from those of us in this Chamber and that will pass if it reaches the floor of this Chamber and would avoid an extreme MAGA Republican shutdown.

Just yesterday, a bipartisan group in the Senate voted, I believe, 77-19 to advance this bipartisan continuing resolution. It will reach the floor of the House in a few days.

The question is: What will the House Republican majority do? There are only two paths forward: Allow that bipartisan continuing resolution that meets the needs of the American people to receive an up or down vote, and it will pass and we will avoid a shutdown, or refuse to allow that bill to receive an up or down vote and stick the American people with an extreme MAGA Republican government shutdown that will hurt children, hurt families, hurt seniors, hurt veterans, hurt everyday Americans, and hurt the economy.

If we find ourselves dealing with an extreme MAGA Republican shutdown, what will it all be for? Well, this week is very revealing, because we are considering bills, including the one that is before us right now, that have zero chance of becoming law--zero chance--and they are filled with extreme policy poison pills relating to things like cutting Social Security; criminalizing abortion care; slashing public school funding; taking food out of the mouths of women, infants, and children; hurting the ability of veterans and seniors to make ends meet.

That is why the government will shut down, because extreme MAGA Republicans have determined that it needs to try to jam rightwing ideology down the throats of the American people, and, if we don't pay that ransom note, you want to shut the government down.

We know this playbook because we have seen it over and over again. We saw it in the 1990s under Newt Gingrich when the House Republican majority at the time shut the government down twice, demanding that we slash and burn Medicaid. Well, that government shutdown ended with an unconditional surrender, because the American people were unwilling to pay that ransom note to slash and burn Medicaid.

The same thing happened in 2013 when the Tea Party forced a reluctant John Boehner to shut the government down for 14 days. What was the extreme ransom note demand at the

time? That President Obama should repeal the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative accomplishment. It ended the same way, an unconditional surrender, because the American people were unwilling to pay the extreme ransom note.

Then, again, in 2018 into 2019, another government shutdown, longest in American history, 35 days. What was the extreme ransom note demand at the time? That the American taxpayer be forced to pay billions and billions of dollars to fund a medieval, ineffective border wall that Donald Trump wanted to make happen. That government shutdown ended exactly the same way after 35 days--unconditional surrender, because the American people were unwilling to pay that extreme ransom note.

Why are we going through this exercise again when we know it is going to end the same way? Because the American people are not willing to pay a ransom note that will allow my extreme Republican colleagues to criminalize abortion care or to cut Social Security or to slash public school funding or to take food out of the mouths of women or infants or children. That is not a ransom note that will ever be paid.

You have a bipartisan vehicle coming out of the Senate that will be before the House in a few days, and there is only one responsible course of action. House Democrats are prepared to support that bipartisan agreement so we can avoid a government shutdown that will hurt the American people, and the only question is: Will our Republican colleagues join us?

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. 4367, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I begin by thanking the chairwoman of the full committee, Ms. Granger, for her leadership and her tireless efforts to bring these appropriation bills to the floor.

I also thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, my good friend, Mr. Cuellar, who has worked with us in good faith on the bill despite some disagreements on policy.

Lastly, I have enjoyed my time sitting next to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, not once, but twice in the last few days.

The bill before us today provides $62.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of $2.1 billion above the fiscal year 2023 level.

In addition, the bill also includes $20.3 billion for disaster response and recovery activities, including to support communities after the devastating wildfires in Maui and Hurricane Idalia.

One of the most pressing challenges this country faces is a border security crisis that has raged under the Biden administration. Two million migrants illegally crossed the border in each of

the last 2 years, and we are on track for that same amount this year. Just yesterday alone, there were 11,000 migrant encounters. Let me repeat that--nearly 11,000 migrant encounters in 1 day.

Regardless of your definition of border security, it is clear that the policies of this administration are not working. The reason is obvious. The White House is sending a message to cartels and migrants that the border is open, and there will be no consequences if you cross illegally.

This bill forces the Biden administration to do what it has not and will not do on its own--act to address the border security crisis. The funding and policy provisions included in this bill are in lockstep with the provisions of H.R. 2, which together will put us on a path to securing the border.

Unlike recent Homeland Security appropriations bills and the President's request, this bill returns to a tried-and-true border security approach by investing in methods to both secure the border and deter those who have no legitimate basis for entry.

This bill includes $2.1 billion for physical barriers with explicit conditions that the funds be put on contract quickly. The chief of the Border Patrol and other border security professionals have confirmed time and time again that walls work.

The bill also provides nearly $500 million to hire more Border Patrol agents to reach an end strength of 22,000 agents. The bill increases funding levels for border security technology, so our agents and officers have the latest, most effective equipment to detect and deter illegal activity.

Stopping fentanyl and other narcotics that have been ravaging our communities is a priority for all of us, so this bill provides $305 million for nonintrusive inspection equipment at our Nation's ports of entry. Detention is a deterrent to those who seek to abuse our immigration system and falsely claim asylum.

As a result, the bill provides funding for 41,500 detention beds, which is 16,500 more than this administration requested, to ensure that ICE has adequate capacity to detain those with final removal orders or who pose a risk to public safety, as well as migrants who illegally cross our borders.

To counter the growing strength of Chinese influence in the Indo- Pacific, the bill provides an additional $335 million to the Coast Guard for fast-response cutters. Also, to increase our presence in the Arctic, the bill provides funds for the Coast Guard to acquire a commercially available icebreaker to extend U.S. sovereignty and counter China and Russian expansion into the polar regions.

Simply put, the bill before us today ensures that the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, who work tirelessly on our behalf, have the resources and the tools that they need to protect this great Nation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), a distinguished member of our Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chair, I thought we were here to talk about the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I look forward to having further discussion and reviewing these amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, this bipartisan en bloc amendment before you is comprised of 23 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

This en bloc contains proposals that would strengthen the underlying bill, and I want to highlight just a few.

The en bloc will provide additional funding to bolster investigations for exploited children with Secret Service and Homeland Security Investigations.

It will increase the nonintrusive inspection equipment at CBP ports of entry to improve detection of fentanyl and other opioids that plague communities across our country.

It would also increase funding for FEMA grant programs, for firefighters and other first responders, and for physical security for nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attack.

Lastly, I want to highlight a proposal that would strengthen our National Urban Search and Rescue Response System.

I was on the ground in Maui last month and learned firsthand the critical role these teams play in saving lives and protecting communities in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

The base bill includes a modest increase for this program, but I strongly support the proposal to further increase funds for this force- multiplying Federal asset.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I believe we are on the bipartisan en bloc amendment.

To that point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) for an encore performance on another amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill before us weakens our national security, defunds border security, harms the Homeland Security workforce, and leaves Americans vulnerable to escalating disasters. That we are debating this bill on September 27, 3 days before the end of the fiscal year, when House Republicans have provided no path forward to keep our government open is irresponsible.

The House majority has exhibited their own inability and unwillingness to govern by ensuring this bill cannot become law without other partisan legislation moving first, but it cannot become law. Rather than voting to keep our government open and ensuring border protection officers and immigration officials get paid, Republicans are pursuing a path explicitly designed to shut down the Federal Government. A shutdown will have consequences for every American family and on the border and border communities.

Mr. Chair, Democrats do not support an open border, but let me be unequivocal. There is a crisis on our southern border. Our border communities are struggling with the influx of immigration. The status quo cannot be maintained. That much, we agree on.

Where the majority and minority differ is how we address this issue. We must continue to invest in our processing facilities and in transportation and medical care. We need to have an effective process of determining who is eligible to enter the country and who is not.

We must continue to invest in newer technology and in our immigration and border security officials and invest in immigration judges, but we must also think bigger, broader, bolder. We cannot hope to resolve this issue if we only begin addressing it right at the border.

We must invest in our partnerships with Latin-American countries and fund the expansion of safe mobility offices. Our Republican colleagues refuse to negotiate with Democrats on these issues. We were kept on the sidelines, and, thus, this bill does not make the sound investments that would actually reduce the burden on our border facilities and our communities.

This bill misses important opportunities to address the dire opioid crisis that we face as a Nation. It provides insufficient funding for our ports of entry where the vast majority of these drugs enter our country.

We should be focusing resources where we agree they are needed most, like combating fentanyl crossing the border, helping our border communities, advancing our cybersecurity posture, protecting Americans from violent extremism and foreign adversaries.

I am also deeply concerned about the conditions that greet migrants and asylum seekers, people who leave their homes out of desperation and necessity. We have a responsibility to ensure the safety of these migrants, especially children, and to provide resources so that those who are entitled to stay under our immigration laws can do so.

Please understand, by law the United States is required to take in unaccompanied children from neighboring countries, screen them, house them, and provide safe placement.

This bill leaves Americans vulnerable to the growing number and increasing severity of natural disasters, exposes Americans to foreign threats with inadequate cyber and infrastructure security investments, and does not fully fund the Transportation Security Administration personnel.

House Republicans claim to care about oversight, but this bill proposes several cuts to programs throughout the Department of Homeland Security which are critical to the oversight of our immigration facilities.

This bill also eliminates discretionary funding for refugee processing. It shifts the burden of those costs to an already backlogged and overwhelmed system.

Mr. Chair, we all know the enactment of appropriations

will require bipartisan agreement on sound investments, not reckless cuts and partisan policy riders.

Let us focus. Let us focus on opening the government and keeping it open. There is a bipartisan bill in the Senate that we are now debating--77-19--that is overwhelmingly bipartisan. It will come here. Let's put that bill up. Get bipartisan support on this floor. Bring these harmful consequences to the American people to a close.

Don't close the government down.