Supporting the goals and ideals of Dominican Heritage Month.

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

Again, I understand where the gentleman is coming from, but, if we look at it, even the prior administration also understood that the way to address this issue is to put those gates there because of the flooding.

Congress has been looking at this issue with CBP for the last 15 years, and, while it is not perfect, I do understand the prior two administrations have come to the same conclusion, and that is: Deal with the monsoons, the flooding, and they put those doors to make sure that things are not washed off.

Keep in mind that we are spending about $36 million a mile for every fence that we put up. That is $36 million a mile. With about $3 to $5 million, we can get the best technology that can include drones, that could include sensors, that can include so much of the technology to address that.

Again, if you spent $36 million a mile for a fence, all you need is a $100 ladder that would take care of the problem that you have. Again, I will show that, even in Texas, Mr. Chairman, people are concerned about the flooding over there, and that is why the fence is put a quarter mile or a half a mile away, so all the landowners that are over here, they lose their property because you are putting the fence on this side, so the renters, the property, the private right is gone because of the fence.

All you have is the river over here. People just walk over here to the fence and claim asylum. We have to have repercussions at the border. Whoever is supposed to stay, stay. Whoever is supposed to be deported should be deported.

Again, we cannot play defense on the 1-yard line, called the U.S. border. We need to extend the perimeter out there. Again, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the wall might be damaged because of the water or the flooding, but, again, the past administration--the Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the Bush administration-- all came up with the same conclusion when they got asked to look at this issue, and they said: You have to put doors or gates so the rain or the floods don't wash away the fence.

Mr. Chair, I understand where my colleague is coming from, but I will ask the floor to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, 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.

I trust the work of Border Patrol agents. I trust the work of OFO, which are the men and women in blue at ports of entry. I trust the Air and Marine agents. I trust the work of ICE agents. I trust the work of HSI, Homeland Security agents. I trust the work that they do.

What we are looking at, what wants to be changed, is section 221 that says that none--this is what the law is right now--none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be made available to transport aliens unlawfully present, paroled, or inadmissible to the United States into the interior of the United States for purposes other than the enforcement of immigration law.

It is already here. Again, I don't think we ought to be legislating on the House floor. I think we need to get input from the agents that I mentioned that I support: Border Patrol, OFO, Air and Marine, ICE, HSI. I think we need to ask for it, but the law is already there. It says: cannot go into the interior of the U.S. itself.

Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise respectfully in opposition against this amendment, but I will say this: My good friend and I share the border. We will continue working.

I do believe in detention beds. I do believe there is a place for them. I do believe that we should best utilize the detention beds for the high-risk detainees, and I believe also that we should give ICE flexibility.

I will commit to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales) and to my other good friend from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) that I will work with them when we get in conference committee because this is not the final bill. I will work with them on this particular language.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

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

Any Secretary of Homeland Security plays a very critical role in national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served our country as U.S. Attorney, director of USCIS, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and now Secretary.

I know that we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle where they say that the Secretary has not achieved operational control of the border. Operational control of the border was first defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and neither the Border Patrol chief nor the Secretary has yet declared operational control since then.

If you look at it, two Republican Presidents, Bush and Trump, neither of them obtained operational control. Two Democrats, Obama and Biden, also have not obtained operational control.

I know how important the Constitution is to my colleagues, and I would ask you to say that by targeting salaries it is simply unconstitutional, as pointed out in the United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

If we are going to uphold the Constitution, the Court has said that targeting salaries is not the right way. We all want to secure the border, but targeting somebody's salary does not get us to the end that we want to get to.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my chairman, in strong opposition to this amendment.

CISA Director Easterly leads an organization of over 3,000 dedicated public servants who play a critical role in our national security.

First, Director Easterly is the operational lead for Federal cybersecurity charged with protecting and defending the Federal civilian executive branch networks, the dot-gov we all rely on.

Second, CISA serves as the national coordinator for critical infrastructure security and resilience, working with partners across government and industry to make sure that we protect and defend our Nation's critical infrastructure from bad actors.

Again, when you target somebody by name and you want to reduce their salary, it is unconstitutional. Targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out by United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, in asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, for yielding. Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) on this amendment.

What we are looking at here is CISA Director of Election Security plays a critical role in our national security. Director Hale has served his role in many administrations as a career civil servant under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Again, I say that targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946. I join my chairman, Mr. Joyce, in urging our colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment of my friend from Arizona.

The DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans plays a critical role in our national security. The Senate confirmed this position to do certain things. At his confirmation, Mr. Silvers said that the Department must secure the borders. It must be relentless in disrupting the human and drug trafficking organizations that inflict such devastation. It must administer our immigration system securely and humanely and must also facilitate the lawful flows of trade and travel that power this economy.

Again, we might have some differences on how we secure the border. We did have an opportunity the last 2 years in the Homeland appropriations that we added $2.4 billion, a 15 percent increase, to Homeland the last couple of years. I remind my colleagues that except for two members of the Republican Party that are still serving, everybody else voted no on securing the borders--hiring more Border Patrol, hiring more ICE agents, hiring more RFO, Air and Marine, technology. Except for two Members that are still serving on the Republican side, everybody voted no.

If we want to secure the border, let's look at how we do that. Again, I say this just because we might have differences on how we do it, but to target an individual, I would assume it would violate the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution. In fact, targeting an individual by name is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case in 1946.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconstitutional amendment. If we want to have a debate on border policy, we certainly can do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Respectfully, to my colleague, again, if we are concerned about the security of the country, national security, border security, again, I will remind that the last couple of years, we have added over $2.4 billion to the Homeland Security bill, and there were only two of my Republican colleagues that are still in Congress that voted for the increase.

If we are concerned about security and the work that we are doing-- terrorism, counterterrorism, and threat--we all should have voted for the appropriation bill.

Mr. Chair, let me bring up some figures again. We know as of July 2023, just a couple months ago, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 percent of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.

If you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I want to go after anybody that brings drugs in but, again, we, as Members of Congress, have the constitutional duty to provide oversight over the budget. The way we provide oversight is not by targeting somebody by name and going after their salary.

Again, this will violate the Bill of Attainder Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and it would also be in violation of the Supreme Court case of 1946 that we have mentioned before.

If we want to provide oversight, there is a way of doing it and it is not targeting somebody without their due process and basically firing that individual.

Again, if we want to go ahead and debate how much money we put in, we can do that, but not by targeting somebody against the Constitution.

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

Mr. Chair, again, this amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, again, by targeting someone by name is unconstitutional as pointed out by U.S. v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

Again, I would go back. If we are so interested in border security and national security, we had a chance to add $2.4 billion to CBP's budget authority, an increase of 15 percent. It doesn't matter what the vehicle was. The bottom line is some people who voted, except for two of my Republican colleagues, voted against pay raises for Border Patrol, the mental health services that we provided, college help also, clothing allowance, technology, canines, everything that is so important to border security, except for two of my colleagues who are still in Congress.

Again, you can say that I didn't like the vehicle and this pay raise for Border Patrol and the other help that we provided. The bottom line is some folks voted against border security, and now we are trying to come back to try to change the narrative.

Again, I would say that it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Lovett case of 1946. If we want to provide oversight, there are ways, and I will be happy to sit down with my colleague from Arizona and go over that.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me just say, as a point of privilege, it is so good to see my good friend from Louisiana. Again, I am with him all the way. I appreciate it.

We disagree on this amendment. We might agree on defunding other things, but not this particular one.

I will say, again, in the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP operation moneys. From there, we added moneys for more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, new intel specialists, trade enforcement staff, and other personnel. We added additional technology at the ports of entry. We added initiatives that support CBP workforce, such as suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, tuition allowance, to make sure that we support our men and women in green, in blue, and Homeland Security in general.

Again, I will say that, if we support them, except for two Members that are still on my Republican side, all voted against supporting Border Patrol in all this. If we are so interested, why did we vote on $2.4 billion of moneys for Border Patrol?

Again, this is something that I would ask you to look at. Again, what we should be focusing right now is: How do we keep our government open? Folks said, If you pass H.R. 2, and we are going to go ahead and get the job done. It is right in the Senate. If this bill passes the floor, it is going to be in the Senate.

What we ought to be focusing on is: How do we keep the government open? Again, I would remind my colleagues that, if you look at the last five shutdowns, the House Republicans controlled the House. On November 13, 1995, the Republicans controlled the House; December 15, 1995, it was the Republicans who controlled the House; September 30, 2013, the Republicans controlled the House; January 19, 2018, the Republicans controlled the House; December 21, 2018, again, the Republicans controlled. We had shutdowns, and, again, if we are not careful, the Republican-controlled House will have another shutdown at 12:01 this coming Sunday.

Again, we want to work with you. We want to sit down. You know my position. I have always said that I don't like open borders, and we have to make sure that we secure the border. Again, people talk about crime. I can pick any city. I will say New Orleans. If I pick New Orleans, you will see that crime is lower per 100,000 than in my hometown of Laredo. Rape, murder, assaults, those crimes are lower. Our border is safe.

Now, that is on the crime part. If you want to talk about migration, I agree we need to do more on that, but cutting somebody's salary doesn't get us to what we need. We need to make sure that we stop playing defense on the one-yard line, called the U.S. border.

What we need to do is to do what happened in 2015 and 2019. President Barack Obama sat down with the Mexicans and said, Hey, you have to stop people from coming to the border, and guess what? The numbers went down.

In 2019, President Trump did the same thing, and asked the Mexicans, Hey, stop the people from coming in. Guess what? The numbers came down.

We need to make sure that we put authorities--and I emphasize-- authorities for Homeland, where they can do more outside the U.S. border, because otherwise, we are not going to see the same thing we saw in 2015 and 2019.

We keep playing defense on the one-yard line. I want to secure the border, but, again, if you want to stop drugs, I will say it again, most of the drugs will be coming in--again, the latest numbers from July of 2023, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.

Again, I will say that, if you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I don't care who brings in drugs. I want to make sure that they are put in jail.

Again, I will say this: I know that a lot of you believe in the border wall, but if you look, this is fencing all here, and this is where the heat map shows. Why? Because the border fence is a quarter mile to a mile away from the river where the international border is.

Keep in mind--I agree with you--89 to 90 percent of the people asking for asylum don't get granted asylum officers. What we ought to be doing is sending judges and asylum officers down here to make sure that we do our job over here.

If we need to deport somebody, I will be the first one to say, Deport that individual, but, again, putting a wall, $36 million a mile, when you can get $3 to $5 million for the drones.

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

Mr. Chair, since 1999, the policy has been, under the Clinton administration, under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration, that immigration officials still consider whether a noncitizen will become dependent on cash benefits. I agree. That has been the policy since 1999, and I think we ought to stick with that policy where a noncitizen should not be dependent on cash benefits. Follow the law, and that is what we want to do under the current policy.

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

Mr. Chair, these policies, in my opinion, should be debated in a different bill. DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. The DHS doesn't come up with policies. They don't develop their independent policies on these issues. Rather, they implement policies that originate with the CDC.

We can get into a debate about wearing masks or having vaccines, but, again, I think we need to concentrate this on another bill and not on Homeland.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we support border security. We also support the U.S. Citizen Immigration Service where they have asylum officers.

One of the things we ought to be doing is adding more money to support the asylum officers so they can be at the border, and they can make a decision whether somebody stays or has a credible fear.

We know the numbers; 89, 90 percent of the people who ask for asylum will be denied because the law is very specific on what asylum is.

It has to be persecution by the state based on religion or based on political beliefs. If you are coming in because you want a job, or you are coming in for a better life, or you are coming in because of a drought or you are hungry or because your country is falling apart, it is not allowed under the law.

What we ought to do is make sure that Homeland has the money to support border security. Again, I remind my friends that the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority, a 15 percent increase. Except for two Members from the Republican side, everybody voted ``no'' on it.

Again, we want to support border security. If you want to look at fentanyl, the fentanyl will come in through two ports in Mexico, the legal precursors.

Then they come up here, and we have to make sure that we add money for technology to make sure that we stop the drugs coming in.

Again, I am for border security, and I want to work with you to get to border security. Congressman Holman in 1976, the Holman Rule--keep in mind that the Bill of Attainder Clause says no punishment without a trial.

I believe this is in violation of Lovett in The Supreme Court in 1946; it says this type of action is unconstitutional.

Again, if we want to have a debate, let's go ahead and have a debate, but to target somebody's salary is unconstitutional.

I agree. We need to do more to secure the border, and I certainly want to work with my colleagues from Colorado, Ohio, and wherever you might be from. I certainly want to work with you.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the last 2 years we had an opportunity to add $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority. That is a 15 percent increase.

Except for two Members, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no''. Money for Border Patrol, money for intelligence, money for securing the border, and they voted ``no'' on it. We had an opportunity to vote ``yes'', and it was voted against.

Again, I would say that if we have differences, how do we address this, by cutting somebody's salary, which is unconstitutional?

In United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court says you can't do this. It is due process without a trial, punishment without a trial, which is the Bill of Attainder Clause again.

I want to secure the border, but I want to make sure that we put funding on this. We are about to have a shutdown this Saturday.

Again, we have been asking our Republican friends to sit down, and I am ready to sit down and work it out. If we don't do this, we are going to be affecting so many people.

It is going to affect 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees, including 38,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard military personnel.

It is going to affect 59,000 CBP personnel, including Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents, 58,000 TSA personnel, 19,300 FEMA employees, and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. We are not focusing on what we ought to focus on, and that is making sure that we don't have a shutdown.

Again, Members, I would remind you that the last five shutdowns, you were in charge, and again, five--we are going to make it number six.

We want to sit down and work with you, but again, as the minority Members, we want to sit down and be at the table.

I ask that we oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition. This particular individual has served in senior roles throughout DHS, including as a career official under Republican and Democratic administrations.

As a career official, she led the initial implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards for ICE during the Trump administration--and she was not fired under the Trump administration. During the Trump administration she also led the development of a 2019 National Detention Standards, which is interesting because my colleagues included it as a provision in this bill that would require those standards to be applied to all detention facilities.

If we have a problem with policy, let's debate policy. I can tell you we ought to be focusing on making sure that we keep the government open. We can pass these four bills, but I can tell you there is no Senate conference over there. They are not going to take these bills up in the next couple of days.

Instead of focusing on what we ought to do, that is, preventing the sixth Republican-led shutdown since 1995, we ought to be working together instead of doing this.

This amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said in United States v. Lovett, 1946, it is unconstitutional to target an individual.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

This bill on Homeland Security passed June 21, 2023. We are in September and we are just taking the bill right now. This bill, Homeland Security, got passed out of appropriations on June 21, 2023, and here we are late at night trying to pass a bill where there is no Senate conference. They are not even considering this bill, and we are not addressing the issue before us.

The issue before us is that the last government shutdowns were under Republican House majorities. In fact, the longest shutdown in history was a Republican House and Senate with Trump in the White House in 2018. Again, on November 13, 1995, December 15, 1995, September 30, 2013, June 19, 2018, and December 21, 2018, Republican-controlled Houses had a shutdown, five of them that we are looking at, and I think we are going to have the sixth one. Again, this bill passed on June 21 of 2023, and here we are in the middle of the night trying to decide.

Instead of focusing on what we ought to do to make sure we don't have a government shutdown, we are focusing on a bill that might pass over to the Senate, but there is no conference committee. What are we going to do at 12:01?

Again, if we have a problem or a difference--I should say, a difference in policy--I am ready to sit down. I don't want to see open borders. I want to make sure we support Border Patrol. I don't just go visit the border; I live there. I go with Border Patrol to church, I see them at the stores, our kids go to school together. I want to make sure that we support our men and women in green.

This amendment is unconstitutional. When you target salaries, the Supreme Court has already said in United States v. Lovett in 1946, it said, the Bill of Attainder Clause to the Constitution says that you cannot provide punishment without due process.

If we have a difference, let's debate it. You know what? We should have been doing this on June 22, the day after we passed it. Here we are in the middle of the night, 9:10 p.m. Eastern time, and we are talking about passing a bill that the Senate is not even considering right now.

Mr. Chair, I want to sit down with my good friend from Colorado and the chairman, Mr. Joyce, but this is not the time to be talking about taking people's salaries away.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think this is a policy that should be debated in a different context in a different bill.

DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. DHS does not develop independent policies on these issues but rather implements policies that originate within the CDC.

Again, we can have this debate, but I think we are in the wrong jurisdiction of the bill. This is the Department of Homeland Security bill, not the Labor-HHS bill. If we are talking about things that are important, I would respectfully ask that we look at the date that this Homeland bill was on--June 21, 2023.

We should have taken this bill on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:30 on September 27, looking at trying to pass one of four bills to a Senate that has not taken H.R. 2. Certainly, they are not in conference ready to take up any of our bills.

What we ought to be focusing on is the shutdown. That is what we ought to be focusing on. Again, I will remind my friend that the last five government shutdowns were under a Republican House majority. We are, again, under a House Republican majority, whether it was on November 13, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 5 days of a shutdown; December 15, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 21 days of a shutdown; September 30, 2023, a Republican-controlled House, 16 days of a shutdown; January 19, 2018, 2 days; and, of course, December 21, 2018, a Republican-controlled House, 34 days.

Again, we are under a Republican-controlled House. On Sunday, 12:01, I hope we are not talking about a shutdown because, Members, we could pass this bill. Over there, there is no Senate waiting for this. They are working on a continuing resolution. If we have a shutdown, it is border security that is going to be hurt because, in October, starting next week, we are supposed to hire 150 new Border Patrol agents.

All of that will stop. Any vetting, any hiring, anything that we are supposed to do will be shut down. Members should have done this on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:33 p.m. Eastern time, where we are debating a bill and an amendment that has nothing to do with this. It is the wrong jurisdiction.

I say, respectfully, that we ought to be focusing on trying to keep the government open.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask Members to vote ``no'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to an amendment that prohibits funding for the Uniting for Ukraine program.

In life, we have to make a decision: Either we are for good or for evil. Either we are for democracy or for dictatorships. This Uniting for Ukraine program allows Ukrainians who are displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to apply to come to the U.S. through humanitarian parole.

This amendment seeks to stop a program and block thousands of Ukrainians from entering the country. Here, again, is an attempt to cut any support for Ukraine as they fight to defend the country from an illegal Russian invasion.

Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe through the use of force. He is doing so in violation of international law and is deliberately killing civilians, destroying the economic livelihood of Ukraine, and taking kids from Ukraine, stealing the kids, taking them to Russia.

War crimes are being committed on a mass scale, and the United States and the democratic nations of the world must continue to strongly oppose him.

Again, I remind Members that this bill passed on June 21, 2023. Here we are, at 9:40 p.m., and we are going to be here till about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I don't mind working. My parents were migrant workers who worked hard, so we can work and stay here till whatever time, but the point I am trying to make is that instead of looking at this bill on June 22, 2023, here we are a few days before the shutdown and, again, I remind everyone that the last five shutdowns have been by Republican-controlled Houses.

This Sunday, at 12:01, we will probably see the sixth Republican- controlled shutdown. Again, I want to work with the majority. I want to work with my good friend, who is always in a good mood, Mr. Joyce. I want to work with him on this, but you can't say: We are in the majority. You are in the minority. You are not going to have a say.

Some of us don't just go visit the border. We actually live there. I work with the Border Patrol. I want to support them.

I want to remind Members that we had an opportunity to put $2.4 billion, which we did add, to support Border Patrol and control the border. Guess what? All except for two Republicans that are still in the House of Representatives voted against border security.

Again, we have a choice. It is either good or evil. It is either a dictatorship or a democracy. I stand for good, and I stand for democracy, and I ask Members to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chair, haven't we done this amendment two or three times already?

I mean, we know that the majority doesn't want to pay the salary. We already passed--

Mr. Chair, I guess the question I have is, we have done this amendment three times.

Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. I guess his salary would now be $3 dollars since we have done this three times.

Nevertheless, I would remind Members again that the last two fiscal years we added $2.4 billion to CBP authority. That is a 15-percent increase. Money that would have been used to hire more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, intel specialists, threat enforcement officers, and other personnel, adding technology at the ports of entry where 90 or 94 percent of the drugs come in.

Again, initiatives to support the morale of the CBP workforce, like suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, and tuition.

Guess what? Every single Republican, except two that are still serving, voted no to pay the Border Patrol and give them the money so they can do the work. They voted no.

Again, here we are, at 9:50. What are we doing? Taking a bill that passed on June 21, 2023. We are not talking about the continuing resolution--because again, on Sunday at 12:01, we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995.

Again, I thank all the staff, both on the Republicans' and Democrats' side, for working late; Capitol Police are working late. We can stay here as long as you want to, and maybe increase it to $4 instead of $3 on the pay for the Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I would say this: We are going to have a shutdown because we can pass this bill, or we can say we are going to strip out the H2B visa and get some Members who are going to vote ``no.'' Whatever you want to do, but there is no Senate waiting to handle this bill.

Mr. Chair, I say to my colleagues again, we can stay as long as we want to. I can stay, and some of us will be here at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, but again, we ought to be working on a CR because we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown. Five in a row; you can make it six if you don't work with us.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment respectfully, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect, but I would remind folks that we can't play defense on the one-yard line and call it the U.S. border. We have to make sure we move the perimeter. The Secretary has to look at threats inside and outside the United States.

Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to look at 2015.

What happened in 2015? The numbers went down under President Obama. Why? Because we were able to go, visit, talk to other countries so they can stop the migrants before they came to the U.S. The numbers went down.

In 2019, under President Trump, the same thing happened. Again, we were able to work with those countries, traveled over there, talked to them to make sure that they are able to stop folks before they come over here. The numbers went down.

Again, we need to do the same thing, because it is not only the Secretary, but if you have a shutdown--and again, I remind Members at 10:00 at night, we should have been doing this debate back on June 22, a day after the appropriations of Homeland Security passed.

But here we are, addressing something when we know there is no Senate waiting for this bill. There is no Senate ready that has handled H.R. 2. So again, the best thing to do to avoid the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995 is to sit down with Democrats, do it in a bipartisan way, and address this particular issue.

Mr. Chair, a shutdown would not be helpful for anybody. I ask my colleagues to please look at this amendment, and I urge them to reject it.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It ensures that all employees across the Department have a sufficient up- to-date understanding for climate change.

If we keep in mind, one of the agencies under DHS is FEMA. What does FEMA deal with? Climate, hurricanes. All this strategy does is it blocks the

Department from studying or even understanding one of the most pressing issues.

Again, just understand, we can't put our heads in the sand and say there is nothing happening on that, yet in times of crisis during a natural disaster we expect the Department to deliver on its mission and make decisions during evolving circumstances.

All it does is understand the evolving environment. That is all.

I will vote ``no'' and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this amendment would strike a section within a proposed rule. Proposed rules have no force of law.

If enacted, the administration would just simply rename the section and continue to execute the fee rules as currently as they are trying to do that.

Let's keep in mind USCIS is a fee-funded agency. Except for a small portion, they don't get appropriations. They work on fees. We have to find the right balance on the fees and where we add those fees.

Again, I understand what you're trying to do, but I think this amendment

will strike a proposed rule, and I don't think this is the right way to address this. I do understand what you are saying, but based on that, I would ask that we vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I would say this as the ranking member, if Chairman Joyce would want to sit down with me, I would be happy to sit down and have this conversation.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect to my colleague, the former sheriff, as my brother is a former sheriff on the border.

I ask that if we have differences in opinion, instead of just eliminating this office of civil rights, I would remind our colleagues that this Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties covers the 260,000 personnel who work for DHS. That is, it covers the 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees and the 59,000 CBP personnel. That includes Border Patrol and OFO, who are the men and women in blue. It covers 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents and immigration enforcement officers; 58,000 TSA personnel; 19,300 FEMA employees; and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. All of those employees are under Homeland.

Again, I do understand we might have some differences, and I will be the first one to say let's sit down and have a bipartisan conversation to address those concerns. To eliminate the office, I would say that would not be the right policy.

Again, I remind folks, at 10:23, that we passed the Homeland appropriations on June 21. We should have been doing this at 10:23 on June 22 instead of doing this tonight.

I don't think there is a conference committee on the Senate side. We

ought to be focusing on how to keep the government open.

With all due respect to my good friend from Texas, the former sheriff, we might have some differences, but I will be the first one to sit down with him and figure out how we can address these issues.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of CISA Director Jen Easterly.

It is no secret at this point that this administration is waging war on conservative voices, and Jen Easterly has been at the tip of the Biden administration's spear to censor American speech.

In the recent case decision of Missouri v. Biden, Judge Doughty specifically pointed out Ms. Easterly's targeting of conservative speech for censorship. In fact, Ms. Easterly's censorship efforts were so explicit and pervasive that Judge Doughty believed that the plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed in their claims against Ms. Easterly and the other Biden administration officials.

This was affirmed recently by the Fifth Circuit. On September 6, 2023, they wrote, ``CISA, however, did flag content. Beyond holding regular industry meetings with the platforms, CISA officials engaged in `switchboarding' operations, meaning they acted as an intermediary for a third-party group by forwarding flagged content from them to the platforms.''

For her part, Ms. Easterly has both worked with and in some cases coerced social media platforms to take down and suppress posts that don't fit into the administration's idea of what the truth is. We know this because Ms. Easterly herself has said that conservative opinions that question the administration are not truth but are instead alternative facts and are dangerous to national security, implying that terms like truth are for her and the administration to define. She and other members of the administration have ordered the removal of posts about Hunter Biden's laptop, the COVID lab-leak theory, the ineffectiveness of masks and the vaccine, questions about the security of the 2020 election and future elections, and the state of the economy. Most of that has been proven objectively to be true, but she suppressed it as well as suppressing a variety of other posts, which happened to be inconvenient for the Biden administration.

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

Mr. Chair, not only has Ms. Easterly already suppressed many conservative voices, she has stated that she is preparing to do the same thing again for the 2024 election; not somebody else in the administration, not somebody else in CISA, Ms. Easterly has said this. This continuous and purposeful censorship of conservative voices must stop.

Just as we saw in the last amendment with Secretary Mayorkas, using the Holman rule helps us do our job and do our duty.

In July, Federal Judge Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana gave a memo decision in the case of the State of Missouri v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. As part of his conclusions, Judge Doughty stated multiple times that it was likely the plaintiffs in this case will prevail on their ultimate case of censorship and suppression of conservative voices by the Biden administration.

The primary means of censorship by the defendants in the case was by colluding with and in some cases ordering social media companies to ban conservative individuals on their platforms and to take down posts which dared to question the Biden administration on a number of important issues.

Among the defendants listed by Terry Doughty as having directed this purposeful policy of censorship are CISA Director Jen Easterly. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important endeavor of holding someone accountable. I don't know what more we need to do, but certainly we should hold Ms. Easterly accountable.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the two-on-one here. No, that is fine. I am just kidding you guys.

Here is the deal. Not only is this critical that you hold people accountable, but this person, this Director lied in response to a question from Representative Cloud on this particular issue, on these issues that we were talking about in testimony in the approps oversight hearing earlier this year.

It is my opinion that if we fail to hold this person accountable, then we are going to see like things happen in the future. When you provide a specific deterrent, you also provide a general deterrent, and that is the way a justice system works. That is the way you hold people accountable.

Mr. Chair, in closing, I appreciate my colleagues who don't want to see this

done. It is not unconstitutional to do this. This is a good way to hold people accountable. That is one of the jobs of the United States Congress, to hold people accountable.

What did the Founders give us? They gave us the purse strings. In this instance, it seems to me that this individual should have her salary eliminated.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this may seem like Groundhog Day, but I am going anew. I rise to speak in support of my amendment which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of CISA Director of Election Security Initiative Geoffrey Hale.

As outlined in Judge Doughty's memo decision in the Missouri v. Biden case, as Director Hale worked with social media companies to censor conservatives who speak out against the Biden administration, he was singled out by the judge.

Under the guise of protecting national security and election integrity, Mr. Hale and his team purposely suppressed social media posts that went against the Biden administration's view of what they considered the truth to be.

CISA seems to believe itself to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, ordering social media companies to suppress and ban posts and users that dare to question their side of the story, that dare to speak up for what they believe. Listen to what I am saying, please.

That is what was going on in the agency that was supposed to protect cybersecurity and our elections.

The blatant censorship by Mr. Hale and others of constitutionally protected speech has got to end. It is the weaponization of government against the American people. It is up to us to stand up against that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment. At some point we are going to have to recognize that we need to hold people accountable.

Now, I appreciate my colleagues who oppose this, but I will just tell you something. I don't think we can say we can't do this in the appropriations bill. We have already done something else in the appropriations bill. We just passed by voice vote a defunding of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Why cannot we hold these people accountable? I think we can.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate my colleagues and their position. I fundamentally disagree. You have a heavy burden when you are going to enjoin people. When this case came before the court, the CISA Director of Election Security Initiative, Geoffrey Hale, was one of the defendants that was found to be one of the officials of this administration that was engaged in a clear and focused policy of using the Department of Homeland Security to stop conservatives from questioning the Biden administration on social media, even if it meant censoring constitutionally protected speech.

I guess we have a fundamental difference here. I appreciate and understand what my colleagues who oppose this measure are saying, but I am just not certain what we are going to do then. How are we going to stand up to an administration where every institution of this administration has been weaponized: FBI, DOJ, Department of Education, the border security leadership.

We have CISA and the people who are running CISA leading areas that are systematically suppressing speech and censoring speech.

This isn't me saying it. It is a court of law saying it after evidentiary hearings. It is through admissions, through discovery of these individuals. That is why these individuals lost in court, but there is no other way to hold them accountable.

Holding an administration accountable is one thing, but holding an individual accountable for systematically participating in violations of our First Amendment rights, this is the way we do it. This is the way we should do it.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of the DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Robert Silvers.

Much of my argument is the same. In a court hearing, they are found to have violated the free speech rights of Americans systematically. They are going to lose in court, and we have an opportunity to hold them accountable.

I feel the need to try to throw maybe a slider instead of a fastball. I am reminded of George Mason, who said many years ago something to the effect that because individuals can be punished and rewarded in Heaven but nations can't, nations need to be held accountable on Earth. I am now making an appeal that we hold individuals where we can accountable on Earth.

What we have are people who systematically defied the rights of American citizens for no other reason than they didn't like what was being said about the administration. They politicized their position, and we are going to hold them accountable. I thought it was $17 million or something like that that was going to come off their overall budget. Maybe I am off on that--$19 million? I was pretty close.

Let me give you another example. Somebody said recently that they will take responsibility for that, for a problem that this administration was doing. That begs the question: How did you take responsibility for it? You can't just say, ``I take responsibility. I take the full blame.'' No. What did you do? What did you do to take blame? Were you fired? Were you reprimanded? What happened?

If you don't hold people accountable, they will persist. There is a theory of punishment in criminal law--and I practiced criminal law--and it was, why do you have punishment and sentencing at all? You have punishment and sentencing for public safety. That is one reason.

You also have two kinds of deterrents. You have a general deterrent and a specific deterrent. If you have a specific deterrent, you are trying to teach that individual that that conduct is not acceptable and cannot happen again, so you punish them in whatever way you can that is appropriate. A general deterrent is when the entire society--in this instance, it is the Federal bureaucracy that says, if we do that, we are subject to specific deterrents--in other words, maybe even the elimination of our position, elimination of our salary, whatever it may be.

If we don't hold people accountable, this action will persist because there will be no specific or general deterrents.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague talking about the border. I wasn't going to bring up the border because that is not what my main beef is with this amendment. My beef was about the censorship of U.S. citizens, but if you want to talk border, let's talk border.

I have to clear up one fact that I hear so often from my colleagues across the aisle. When they say something like 90 percent of all the fentanyl that is coming across the border is seized at ports of entry, that is a total sham statement. Ninety percent of interdictions take place at ports of entry, not 90 percent of the drugs coming across.

Why do you stop 90-plus percent at the ports of entry? Because that is where the X-ray machines are, where the dogs are, where the personnel is.

You have all the equipment, but do you know where you don't have equipment? How about the 62-linear miles of the Tohono O'odham Nation Reservation in southern Arizona, which is one of the busiest drug and human trafficking corridors in the world?

This Under Secretary has not secured the border. That is two strikes.

I want to get back to the CISA argument because we have an individual who systematically is okay with censoring United States citizens who are exercising First Amendment rights, but if we want to talk border, I will be here till hell freezes over to talk about why we need to make changes in the Homeland Security folks on the border.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which

prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of the DHS Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention, Samantha Vinograd.

When she was senior adviser for national security, Ms. Vinograd took her role of surveilling and stopping terrorist threats against our Nation and turned it on the American people.

As outlined by Judge Doughty in his memo ruling in the Missouri v. Biden case, Ms. Vinograd and her colleagues purposefully and systematically targeted American conservatives who dared to exercise their right of freedom of speech.

This is on issues that later proved to be accurate objectively, ranging from COVID-19 origins, lab leak theory, the Hunter Biden laptop. The DHS explicitly sought to suppress statements and posts that made the Biden administration look bad.

Turning the counterterrorism role of the DHS on the American people and engaging in explicit government censorship of constitutionally protected speech constitutes a major breach of trust.

Despite this--or, more likely, because of it--Ms. Vinograd was promoted. She wasn't held accountable.

The court names her as a responsible defendant for this activity. She wasn't held responsible. She was promoted to Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention.

In her new position, Ms. Vinograd is no doubt even more of a threat to conservatives who wish to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of speech.

Unelected bureaucrats like Ms. Vinograd cannot be allowed to continue to censor Americans and to decide for themselves what is worthy of being called the truth.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of my amendment.

Now, I want to add something different this time, as well. Elected officials have an accountability measure built in. Leave out impeachment or anything else, our voters elect us. They look at us with scrutiny. We stand before them. We tell them what we intend to do. They look at our record to see how successful we were in doing what we said we would do. You do not have the same ability with a bureaucrat.

The reason that we know about these things, as we began to see these things, is you had an attorney general and several attorneys general come together and file a lawsuit, and a court, in looking at the discovery and taking evidence, said the plaintiffs here, the attorneys general, the States, are going to probably win this. Why? Because people like this bureaucrat, Ms. Vinograd, abused her authority and violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. Seems to me that someone like that should not be in the pay of the American Government.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would rebut a couple of things. When you quote statistics saying 94 percent of all drugs coming into the country are stopped at interior checkpoints or ports of entry, that is an inaccurate statement. It is 94 percent of drugs that are interdicted, that we catch, that is where you catch them.

Why do you catch them there? I mean, this is not rocket science. You catch them there because you have personnel there. You have drug- sniffing dogs. You have X-ray machines that are looking at trucks. You have personnel there.

But I will tell you what you don't have. Come with me to San Miguel Gate.

I have been all over southern Texas. I have been all over southern Arizona and Southern California. Come with me to San Miguel Gate. There is nothing near the San Miguel Gate. The nearest town south of the border is Caborca; that is 2 hours away.

You know what happens? You have more got-aways, known and unknown, through that sector than anywhere else in the country.

Good grief. They don't want to be caught because they are the ones that are bringing in drugs and human trafficking. That is just kind of a fallacious argument.

The next thing is when you say, only two people voted to increase Homeland Security funding, it was because it was an omnibus bill. You had every Christmas tree ornament in the world on that puppy, just enough to drive every Republican off but two.

Yeah, if we had done 12 bills like so many of us advocate, you might have seen a different thing. You might have seen a kind of a joinder of stuff. This does not violate the Bill of Attainder provision of the Constitution. It doesn't violate a court decision. What this is is adherence to the Holman Rule?

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of DHS Director of the Departmental GAO-OIG liaison office Jim Crumpacker.

Director Crumpacker leads DHS's Department of OIG liaison office, an office tasked with maintaining mutually beneficial and productive relations with GAO and the OIG. That is what Mr. Crumpacker stated in testimony before the Senate several years ago.

Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, that mutually beneficial and productive relationship has broken down completely.

DHS continues to obstruct oversight by its own inspector general in violation of the agency's obligations under the Inspector General Act.

Last year, then-Ranking Member Comer and Oversight Committee Republicans opened an investigation into reports that the Department of Homeland Security was obstructing efforts by their inspector general to conduct oversight over DHS programs and policies consistent with its obligations under the Inspector General Act.

At the time the letter was sent, committee Republicans had uncovered a memo circulated to Customs and Border Protection employees, which essentially encouraged CBP employees to resist OIG's request for access to CBP systems.

Think of that. You have a memo going out to CBP employees saying, Don't cooperate with the OIG. The memo falsely claimed that OIG's access to information was not unlimited, contrary to the statute, incorrectly relying on a statute that limited public disclosure of information.

To be clear, the Inspector General Act contains no such limitation.

DHS/OIG has a statutory mandate to have timely access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other materials from DHS components, with only a narrow national security exemption that requires Congressional notification. Unfortunately, DHS continues to slow-walk and stonewall oversight efforts.

In June, Inspector General Cuffari came to committee and testified under oath that:

Since the fall of 2021, DHS/OIG has consistently reported DHS delays and denials of DHS/OIG's request for information.

These are requests for information allowed under statute, and a response is mandated. These are requests for information that our more than 700 career professionals need in order to do their jobs in the OIG offices and which DHS is required to provide to DHS/OIG consistent with the statute.

I remain hopeful that DHS will improve its responsiveness to our requests for information so that DHS/OIG can continue to provide Congress and the public robust and timely oversight with the words that Inspector General Cuffari said.

I appreciate his optimism, but after nearly 3 years, Congress may need to start twisting some arms.

This is the place, this is the individual who has put his thumb on the scale to prevent that information from going to the inspector general, information that we need, and we need the results of that OIG report.

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

Mr. Chair, let's litigate the border some more, and let's talk about how these things get funded.

If that is the new deal that you throw an omnibus bill because you don't bother to do your 12 bills and you are going to say, Oh, you voted against something, then we should start talking about all of the bad programs and policies that you all voted for in that omnibus bill that has left us with $2 trillion in deficit this year. That is what you did. You added $2 trillion to the national debt.

Mr. Chair, the bottom line is they have an individual here, Mr. Crumpacker, who has basically said we are not going to provide information to the DHS-OIG.

What are we going to do about it? We are going to say, Oh, that is just too bad. That is too bad.

Mr. Chair, we have a massive border problem. I don't even think my colleague across the aisle would disagree with that.

Last Friday in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts said there was no border crisis. I thought that was intriguing. You got 11,000 people rolling through the Tucson sector. Those are the encounters. They don't get those kinds of groups in Tucson because they are getting the runners. But you know what, the whole border is in disarray, and that is between the ports of entry.

That is your ports of entry that you are so pleased with. You have the CBP One app bringing people in by the tens of thousands. I think we need to hold Mr. Crumpacker responsible.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and expenses of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

I want to speak about Secretary Mayorkas. I want to speak about what has happened at the border. By the time we are standing here today, you have millions and millions of people who have come through illegally into our country, and what they have done is they have surrendered.

In the meantime, you have at least 2.5 million people who have not surrendered and who have escaped into the country.

I have asked Secretary Mayorkas, I brought him to a Border Security Caucus. I said: Secretary, do you know what the Secure Fence Act of 2006 says?

Can you tell me, do we have operational control of the border?

He says: Oh, yeah, we have operational control of the border.

Okay. Then how come you have set a record every month?

At that point, he had set a record every month, from February 2021; every month a new record. In fact, last month we had another new record: 304,000 encounters.

We brought him into the Committee on the Judiciary. He is under oath at that point.

Do you know what the definition of operational control of the border is?

Oh, yeah.

Do we have it?

Yeah, we have it.

Then, Mr. Secretary, why in the world are we seeing literally tens of thousands of people, 8 to 9,000 most days, some days 10, 12, 13,000 people? That is a violation of that act.

He says, Look, we have control.

The last time we had him in, what, just a month, month-and-a-half ago: Mr. Secretary, hey, do you have operational control?

And he says, Yeah.

We bring out the poster with the statute again and said, Hey, take a look at the statute.

He says, Oh, no, no. We don't have operational control with that. We have defined our own operational control.

That is the kind of person that needs to be held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our distinguished majority leader, who we are so happy to see with us on the floor tonight.

Mr. Chair, let's talk about which side wants to get something done on the border. I keep hearing about the magnificent omni bill. How many Democrats voted for H.R. 2 in this House? Not one. Don't tell me that you care about the border. You didn't vote to secure the border with H.R. 2.

When you say Americans are importing the drugs, first of all, you got it wrong again. I don't think you are listening. Ninety-two percent of the drugs they catch, that is what they catch. It is what they interdict. That is what they stop. That is who they arrest. That takes place at the ports of entry. That ain't where 92 percent of the drugs are coming through.

They are coming through the places wide open where there is no fencing in Arizona. We don't have the river. We have four-strand barbed-wire fence in places. They are coming through there. It is considered the number one drug trafficking corridor in the world.

Don't be telling me that we are stopping 92 percent of the drugs because we are not. Don't show me a heat map of where people are coming through in Texas. That is xenophobic. You need to spread out. Don't be so parochial.

Let's go to Arizona. I will take you to Cocopah. We will stand right there. Literally hundreds of people walk on through. They are not coming from the Northern Triangle states. They are coming from Mauritania. They are coming from Mali and Togo. They are coming from all over the world.

Don't say that you guys care about the border because you are not doing a damn thing to stop it.

What is happening on the border is a crisis. It is the largest mass migration in the history of this entire world. It is time you join us and bring it under control because it is bringing crime.

Laredo is great. Good.

Do you know what they are releasing in Cochise County now? Secretary Mayorkas is calling them freedom runs. We are just going to release people into the community and call them freedom runs.

Mr. Chair, it is time to do something, and I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds in furtherance of the public charge ground of inadmissibility rule.

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that any alien who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible for entry or a readjustment of status. Any alien at any time who might become a public charge is inadmissible for entry or even for readjustment of status. Think about that.

Someone is a public charge if they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.

The primary factor that the DHS is supposed to look at when determining if someone is or will likely be a public charge is the likelihood that the person will be reliant on government benefits and services, such as Medicaid and SNAP.

This past December, the DHS greatly reduced the number of public benefits considered when determining whether an immigrant is or will be a public charge and thus inadmissible for entry or permanent residency.

The Trump administration rightly included programs such as SNAP, housing vouchers, and Medicaid in its determinations on whether an individual would be a public charge. However, President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have decided that not only should we take in thousands of illegal aliens every day but that they should receive the same benefits that thousands of struggling Americans rely on and that those same Americans should pay for it.

The American ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility have always been the spirit of our immigration law. It is in this spirit that Congress decided that immigrants who are likely to become a public charge are ineligible for admittance or permanent residency. However, under this new rule, individuals who are reliant on a number of government benefits can be considered self-sufficient when applying for renewal or adjustment of status.

The DHS' new rule is not only costly to the American taxpayer but also directly incentivizes hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to cross the southern border and come into our country.

It seems to me that Secretary Mayorkas is not only negligent and reckless with securing the border, but he is also negligent and reckless with the American taxpayers' hard-earned money.

That is why I am calling to stop any funding for the DHS' new public charge rule until they secure our border and start acting in the best interests of the American people.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment.

My amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement a TSA vaccine or mask mandate. For years, the Biden administration subjected millions of Americans to draconian vaccine and mask mandates, even when the science showed these mandates did very little.

I remember at one point having literally meta studies and individual studies showing the inefficacy of masks, but we were nonetheless compelled to wear masks.

Now, we are beginning to hear the same people and institutions suggesting again that we need to start looking at public vaccine and mask mandates due to small rises in COVID. This must be coming up on an election year or something.

Specifically, there is talk about TSA mandating people who wish to fly to wear a mask or be vaccinated. These types of mandates are just another form of overreach by this power-grabbing administration, and the American people are not going to put up with it for a second time.

Americans make calculated decisions about their health risks every day. You just saw the great Steve Scalise come down, with a judgment of his own health risk, so he could participate on the floor in something that is meaningful to him. We all make those types of decisions about our health risks every day.

The last thing they need is for unelected bureaucrats to tell them once again when they can and cannot fly, especially since we now know the actual efficacy, or I should say ineffectiveness, of the vaccine and masks.

These calls to renew vaccine and mask mandates are coming from the same people such as Anthony Fauci, who relished controlling the day-to- day lives of Americans and profited off it.

Americans have had enough. This is why we must ensure that neither President Biden, Anthony Fauci, or any other bureaucrat can force Americans to get a vaccine or wear a mask just to exercise their right to travel.

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

Mr. Chair, I think this does belong in this bill. TSA is in this bill, and this is an important policy. I urge the passage of my amendment to stop any funds from being used to implement a TSA vaccine or mask mandate.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary of Ur Jaddou, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to $1.

Ms. Jaddou is a radical leftist. Before joining the Biden administration, she worked for an open borders group called DHS Watch. While at DHS Watch, Jaddou called for stopping Border Patrol funding and referred to CBP as President Trump's ``personal militia.''

Ms. Jaddou has also previously called for the mass release of illegal immigrants. Someone like this should not be in a position of influence at the Department of Homeland Security. She has no regard for the rule of law.

Ms. Jaddou proposed and finalized the rule Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers, which removed ICE attorneys and the adversarial process from the credible fear asylum application process. The rule violates the jurisdiction of Department of Justice immigration judges as stated by section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Homeland Security Act.

Ms. Jaddou also heavily prioritizes USCIS resources to adjudicate and issue employment authorization documents for millions of illegal aliens, parolees, and ever-expanding populations of temporary protected status instead of adjudicating lawful nonimmigrant and immigrant applications. These misguided amnesty pursuits have rapidly increased the USCIS' pending backlog to over 9 million cases.

Jaddou previously pushed other amnesty policies in her role as USCIS during the Obama administration.

Specifically, she aggressively tried to expand parole in place in order to bypass Congress and implement mass amnesty.

Jaddou has also defended the unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, falsely claiming this is a permissible exercise of discretion by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

As an attorney, she should know only Congress has the authority to authorize this type of program. With that, Obama and DHS should have never unilaterally created this amnesty program.

Jaddou in her current role is literally enabling and supporting the Biden border crisis. In August alone, there were 232,972 illegal immigrants encountered at the southern border.

Customs and Border Patrol has seized 25,500 pounds of fentanyl so far in fiscal year 2023. Of course, that is only what has been seized, not what we know is coming into our country illegally and killing Americans, at least 300 a day.

Biden's bureaucrats like Jaddou are literally allowing deadly fentanyl to easily flow into our communities and kill our children.

My amendment is supported by the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, NumbersUSA, and the American Accountability Foundation.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and hold Ms. Jaddou accountable for her blatant disrespect for the law of our Nation.

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

Mr. Chair, I do appreciate my colleague on the other side of the aisle and his efforts to promote border security.

He and I have had conversations about the border. I realize that he represents a district on the border, and I appreciate his sincere concern for what is taking place.

Unfortunately, we do have an invasion. My colleague mentioned that much of the fentanyl that is coming into our country is being found at the ports of entry.

We know that it is being found at the ports of entry, but unfortunately, our Border Patrol agents are overrun, they are overworked, and there is just too large of a surge for them to handle everything that is happening at the border.

Certainly, we want more funding to secure the border, but we don't want more funding for our Border Patrol agents to simply be process agents and bring people into our country in these mass amounts that we are seeing.

I do appreciate my colleague and his efforts to work with us to secure the southern border, and I look forward to future conversations, as well.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman Rule to reduce the salary of Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, Kenneth Wainstein.

In 2020, Mr. Wainstein claimed that President Donald Trump's leadership

was a threat to the rule of law and endorsed Joe Biden for President of the United States.

I will tell you what is a threat to the rule of law: blatantly violating Federal immigration law and intentionally facilitating a complete and total invasion at our southern border.

I will tell you what is a threat to the rule of law: refusing to cooperate with State and local law enforcement officials as required under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I will tell you, Mr. Chair, what is a threat to the rule of law: pursuing a radical open border agenda, purposefully and willfully circumventing every safeguard, check, and balance required by law, allowing terrorists and deadly drugs like fentanyl to freely flow into our great country.

This administration has presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in American history. Since they took power, there have been over 6 million illegal crossings of our southern border. That's right-- 6 million.

Under this administration's watch, illicit fentanyl has killed more than 100,000 American citizens. Furthermore, 151 people whose names appear on the terrorist watch list were stopped.

I applaud our brave men and women who serve as our Customs and Border Patrol agents who were able to detain these 151 people who are on the terrorist watch list.

They were trying to cross our southern border, an all-time record of known terrorists on the watch list crossing into our country, beating the previous record also held by the Biden administration in fiscal year 2022. This is more than the encounters in all fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined.

In August, we discovered that a smuggler with ties to ISIS was helping migrants enter the United States from Mexico. This madness needs to end.

This has all occurred on the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, Mr. Wainstein's, watch.

The American people deserve to have a Department of Homeland Security committed to securing the homeland, not sitting idly by as terrorists flock across our wide open southern border.

My amendment is supported by the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, NumbersUSA, and the American Accountability Foundation.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and hold Mr. Wainstein accountable for not doing his job and for his role in facilitating the worst border crisis in our Nation's history.

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

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I would agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. We do want to sit down and have a conversation.

We realize we are in divided government right now, and that is the process that we are currently working on. We are trying to avoid doing things as normal as they have been done since the mid-1990s here in Washington, D.C.

We do not want to govern and fund the entire government with a straight up and down vote ``yes'' or ``no.''

We don't want continuing resolutions or omnibus bills. We want to go through the funding of the Federal Government bill by bill, sit down, and work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This will be bipartisan. This will be bicameral. We do not have the majority in the Senate. We will have to come together in conference and hash out our differences and work with one another.

I do agree with my colleague that we are going to have to work together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to fund the Federal Government.

I understand that there are a lot of scary numbers of people who would be impacted by a shutdown, but that is why this week we are here, passing four appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government, to avoid a full government shutdown.

There may be a partial shutdown for a short amount of time, but I believe that we can come together and alleviate that and come to a resolution soon.

We can do our jobs. We are passing the Department of Defense bill. We have that on the floor. We are also bringing up the Department of Homeland Security bill, the State and foreign ops, and the ag bill. We can fund these parts of the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman Rule to reduce the salary of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Program Evaluation, Claire Trickler-McNulty, to $1.

Ms. McNulty needs to be held accountable for her blatant disregard of our Nation's national security. Ms. McNulty is an advocate for open borders and is implementing policies that encourage illegal entry.

Ms. McNulty admitted publicly that she stayed at the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration to sabotage border enforcement.

Ms. McNulty worked for an organization known as KIND where she provided legal services for illegal aliens to fight deportation and stay in the country even though they broke our laws and entered America illegally.

Now this open borders advocate is supposed to help protect America's cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security when she clearly has no interest in following the law and doing either of these things.

The appointment of Ms. McNulty is a prime example of the Biden-Harris administration's ignorance to the importance of securing the border. Not only is she an open borders fanatic, but she was behind an $80 million no-bid contract that the DHS Inspector General criticized as improper.

The Biden administration has essentially closed ICE down. They do nothing about people entering the country illegally, that has been shown repeatedly. Just look at the 151 terrorists on the terror watch list that have entered America on Biden and McNulty's watch.

During Ms. McNulty's tenure at ICE, instead of protecting our borders and enforcing our laws, ICE now is acting more like a social service agency for illegals.

ICE is even partnering with groups that campaign for ICE to be abolished, that give aid to illegal aliens, and that award contracts that strictly prohibit tackling the whereabouts of illegal aliens.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and hold Ms. McNulty accountable for doing her job, or not, and for her role in facilitating the worst border crisis in our Nation's history.

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

Mr. Chair, I would remind Members that Ms. McNulty only stayed in the Trump administration, as she was quoted, to sabotage border security efforts. That is not genuine. That is un-American. It is not dutiful.

There are many things that we are doing right now to avoid a shutdown. I certainly do not want a government shutdown. That is why my colleagues do not want a government shutdown. That is why we are debating these four bills and why we are debating the amendments to these four bills.

I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and maybe many on my own side, that we should have done this sooner. We should not have waited until the deadline, but here we are, and we are all in Washington, D.C., working diligently to ensure that the debate is heard on these bills and we have an opportunity to fund these very important aspects of the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary for the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia to $1.

DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is staffed with people that literally want to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency whose mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security.

The woman that leads DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties once said that illegal immigrant felons, convicted of murder and rape, shouldn't be eligible for deportation solely because of their crimes.

Let me repeat that. Wadhia believes that illegal immigrant felons convicted of murder and rape should not be deported. She has also advocated for purging the term illegal immigrant and tried to humanize illegal immigration in order to allow mass illegal immigration.

Throughout her career, this open border bureaucrat has aggressively pursued pro-amnesty policies and even defended illegal immigrants in court who should have been deported.

In her current role, she is literally enabling and supporting the Biden border crisis. Since Joe Biden took office, more than 6 million illegal aliens have entered America. In August alone, there were 232,972 illegal aliens encountered at the southern border, and that does not include the got-aways who were not encountered by our brave Custom and Border Patrol agents.

Customs and Border Patrol have seized 25,500 pounds of fentanyl so far in fiscal year 2023, a deadly drug that is literally killing our children.

Mr. Chair, 25,500 pounds is only what was seized at the border, not what is still flowing freely into our country. Biden's bureaucrats are literally allowing deadly fentanyl to easily flow into our communities.

She has also been a major part of the Federal Government's obsession with diversity, equity, and inclusion, consistently forcing woke policies down the throats of public servants. These woke Federal policies shouldn't be embedded in our Nation's border and national security policies. These misguided agency initiatives need to come to an end.

My amendment is supported by the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, NumbersUSA, and the American Accountability Foundation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and hold Shoba Wadhia accountable for her going rogue in an administration that has ignored the rule

of law and has facilitated the worst border crisis in our Nation's history.

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

Mr. Chair, legislating is beautiful. It is great to actually be down here debating the real issues that Americans are faced with day in and day out.

I do agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle that we should have been debating this bill on June 22, but here we are. It is our responsibility to pass these appropriations bills, 12 individual appropriations bills in total, to the Senate.

What the Senate does is up to them and their Chamber. This is our House and it is our responsibility to do our part of our jobs. That is exactly what we are doing tonight.

I, too, would like to see our border secured. And I look forward to my colleague on the other side of the aisle joining us to support H.R. 2 to secure the border. I can tell he is very, very enthusiastic about actually accomplishing something rather than just throwing money at a problem and creating more processing agents.

I can see the sincerity and hear the sincerity in his voice that he wants a secure Nation and secure borders, especially since he represents a district on the southern border and encounters our brave Border Patrol agents each and every day.

My colleague has brought up several times tonight that you cannot have punishment without a trial. Well, this Holman rule is part of our House rules. We are a self-governing, majority rule body. The Holman rule is here in place to hold unelected bureaucrats accountable.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have any sort of qualm with punishment without trial, I would encourage them to visit our January 6 prisoners in the D.C. jail.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment will prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from implementing any mask mandate for the employees of the Department.

This is an extremely important amendment. Our current appropriation bills completely stop the mandates for vaccines but do not stop the mandates for any future mask mandates.

We need to recognize as a country what Americans have already recognized, COVID is over. This is something that we even passed a resolution on, and the President himself signed it, declaring COVID is over.

We all know something to be very, very true: Masks don't work. They did not stop the spread of COVID. They were really a violation of people's rights. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci himself said that masks do not prevent the spread of COVID, and he said so in a personal email to one of his friends, advising her not to wear a mask when she flew on an airplane.

However, the Biden administration forced our TSA agents, forced everyone to be masked every single time they flew and every single time TSA agents showed up to work.

This administration insisted that illegal aliens posed no threat to spreading COVID, yet treated Border Patrol agents as if they were the COVID superspreaders. We saw many migrants come up illegally invading our country with no masks on, a constant, steady stream of thousands and thousands of people coming into our country from countries all over the world, bringing all kinds of diseases, but yet Homeland decided that it was Border Patrol agents and ICE agents who had to be masked, not the people coming into our country illegally, bringing all kinds of diseases with them. They weren't worried about COVID. It was about control.

Border Patrol agents and all DHS employees were required to wear masks when fulfilling a number of official duties at a time when there was almost no enforcement of these same mask requirements for these same illegal aliens coming across the border.

In light of Democrats' attempts to manufacture the resurgence of COVID, my amendment will protect employees of the Department of Homeland Security against all tyrannical mask mandates.

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

Mr. Chair, this is laughable. This is absolutely pathetic. All the whining and complaining about shutdowns coming from Democrats, who forced shutdowns on Americans by shutting down their businesses, shutting down their freedom of speech, shutting down their churches, shutting down their playgrounds, shutting down beaches, shutting down every human right that Americans possessed, shutting down their freedoms. Listen to Democrats whining and complaining about working late at night.

Americans wanted to work late. They wanted to work all the time, but Democrats forced shutdowns. Do you know how many small businesses closed? We don't know the actual number, but it is a casualty to the American Dream. Businesses were forced to shut down, and they went out of business.

Children are behind in schooling because their schools shut down, and they were forced to stay home doing virtual schooling. We have kids all over America who can't read, can't do math, and this is all happening under the Biden administration that wants to use all of our hard-earned taxpayer resources to pay for migrant children in our taxpayer-funded schools.

Yes, it is important to have an amendment in the Department of Homeland Security appropriation bills forcing there to be no mask mandates because we know the truth: Democrats will do everything they can to bring COVID back, scare Americans, and convince them that a piece of paper strapped on their ears with rubber bands is going to protect them from the man-made COVID-19 virus that came from the Wuhan lab.

This is outrageous. I can't listen to the pathetic whining. It really is pathetic.

We remember last Congress. Last Congress, Democrats had us in here late at night practically every night. I can remember many times sitting on the House floor waiting for them to get all of their things together and voting past midnight.

This is what hard work looks like. We don't want to hear government employees getting a taxpayer-funded paycheck whining about a shutdown when this comes from the very party that shut down America, and we haven't recovered yet.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment will prohibit funding for the Uniting for Ukraine program.

This is a streamlined, categorical parole process that allows an unlimited number of illegal aliens into our country from Ukraine.

There have been over 9 million illegal aliens who have invaded our country since Joe Biden took office. It is unprecedented.

Just last month, over 300,000 illegals invaded our country, the most ever recorded in a single month. Over this past weekend, Border Patrol reported there were over 11,000 illegal alien encounters in just a 24- hour period.

I deeply sympathize with the innocent people in Ukraine, especially since our government is forcing a proxy war there by funding and fueling the war instead of pushing peace in this country.

However, America is facing our own war at our southern border, and we cannot stand to address every global crisis when our own house is not in order, not safe.

We cannot afford to violate our own immigration laws on behalf of a global crisis, especially a global crisis that the United States Government is fueling and funding. The United States is fueling the war in Ukraine by sending tanks, ammunition, F-16s, and over $113 billion taxpayer dollars and counting, especially when the debate in Washington and the argument is about more money for Ukraine.

The Uniting for Ukraine process grants mass categorical parole to these individuals, which is a complete violation of our own immigration laws. Parole is to be granted on a case-by-case basis, as required by the law. Although many claim the specific process is granting parole on a case-by-case basis, based on a proven track record, this administration doesn't even know what case by case means. They just know mass migration into the United States.

Joe Biden and Secretary Mayorkas continue to abuse our immigration laws and create categorical parole for illegal aliens into our country. Secretary Mayorkas has already granted temporary legal status to 75,000 Ukrainians under the temporary protected status designation, which includes benefits such as work permits, Social Security numbers, and driver's licenses.

This Uniting for Ukraine process has no numerical cap, which means an unlimited number of illegal aliens from Ukraine can come and displace American workers. Our country needs to put American citizens first for once.

We need to win the war at the southern border that the Mexican cartels are waging on our country before granting parole to an unlimited number of individuals and allowing them to remain here for an indefinite amount of time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I will remind the House and the American people watching at home that Democrats aren't worried about shutdowns. They love shutdowns. They shut down America for almost 2 years.

People are still suffering from the Democratic, communist shutdowns. I don't know why they keep complaining about it because they are the party that forced it on the American people while they are complaining about it for themselves. That is so pathetic.

Everyone here gets a taxpayer-funded paycheck, so don't whine about shutdowns when you shut down America on the very people who pay your salary.

Let's talk about allowing an unlimited number of Ukrainians into the country on the American taxpayer dime. This war is not supported by American taxpayers, not Americans. Over 55 percent of Americans do not want to fund it anymore.

We want to talk about funding Border Patrol agents. Let's talk about funding Border Patrol so they can secure our border, not be the welcoming committee to the entire world for the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, I ask the House to pass my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my amendment uses the Holman rule, which is different from other amendments that have been introduced. This uses the Holman rule to reduce the salary of Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to $1, and $1 is too much money.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has aided and abetted the complete invasion of our country by deliberately flooding our Nation with drugs, terrorists, and illegals from over 160 countries from around the world.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security States right here: ``With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.''

Being that Secretary Mayorkas has direction, authority, and control over the entire Department, he has failed in his duties to safeguard the American people and our homeland, and he deserves to be fired and impeached.

His job is to protect our homeland and strengthen the national security of our country. Yet, his policies, directives, and statements have created a national security crisis, and has tragically resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.

Since assuming office, he has allowed approximately 7.5 million illegal encounters at our border; over 250 people on the terrorist watch list to be caught crossing our border, and those are the ones we know of, approximately 1.6 million known got-aways to evade U.S. authorities. Imagine how many we don't even know about.

Just this fiscal year alone, Border Patrol arrested over 32,000 illegals with criminal convictions and over 167 MS-13 gang members.

Remember, there are 1.6 million that got away.

Are these terrorists? Are these gang members?

I am sure they are. How many of them have criminal records?

Secretary Mayorkas has allowed fentanyl, the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45, to overwhelmingly flood into our country and kill around 300 Americans every single day. This fiscal year alone Border Patrol has seized approximately 24 pounds of fentanyl attempting to be smuggled into the United States. That is enough fentanyl to kill every single American 15 times over, but the fentanyl keeps coming because 300 Americans are dying every single day.

His open border policies have allowed unaccompanied children to be exploited, and now over 85,000 of them are unaccounted for. Where are these children?

Tens of thousands of other children have been forced into slave labor, and that is according to The New York Times.

He has provided copious amounts of baby formula to illegal aliens at one of the largest processing centers in the country, while American mothers and infants were intensely suffering from severe shortages and couldn't find baby formula on the grocery store shelves.

He flooded hospital maternity units with illegal aliens, so much so that American mothers were turned away and forced to delay inductions. That was in Yuma, Arizona.

He canceled border wall construction contracts established under President Trump that would have secured our Nation's border and was securing our Nation's border, but now the materials lay rusting on the ground.

He has repeatedly pulled border agents from actually securing our border and has moved them to processing roles, welcoming committees, leaving huge gaps for the Mexican cartels and drug smugglers to exploit and gain control of our border, and they are controlling our border.

He has violated the law by directing DHS to mass-parole illegal aliens into the U.S. when Federal law specifically prohibits this. He has encouraged asylum fraud, abused the credible fear standard, and exercised mass catch-and-release policies.

He has turned every single State into a border State. Veterans are even being kicked out of their hotel rooms to make room for illegals.

He has even caused approximately a 1,700-percent increase in just one sector of the northern border. He has not only enabled child exploitation, sex and drug trafficking, and fentanyl overdoses, but he has also done everything in his power to put Americans last.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is well-meaning, but ultimately misguided. We are averaging nearly 10,000 encounters at the southern border on a daily basis, near record levels. My bill addresses the challenge by funding an additional 1,800 Border Patrol agents to relieve the burden on our overworked agents along the southwest border.

Taking funds dedicated to the Border Patrol agents and instead using them to hire additional customs officers dilutes our efforts to secure the border between the ports of entry. Additional officers may be needed to help with legitimate trade and travel that crosses the border, but we have to address the immediate crisis caused by this administration's disastrous border security policies.

If you turn on the television, you can see the flood of migrants heading north on trains, crossing the border in an uncontrolled fashion. It must stop, which is why we desperately need additional men and women in green uniforms to help us gain operational control of the border. I reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to strike several provisions that are crucial to ending the open border crisis that this administration has created.

While I have heard it just portrayed as somehow being cruel and being done by names that are called MAGA or other things, if I am not mistaken, it was just this morning on the news that I happened to see the mayor, I believe a Democrat, from New York saying they can't take any more; the Governor of New York, a Democrat, saying they can't take any more; the Governor of Massachusetts declaring a state of emergency; the Democratic mayor of Chicago, same issue.

I guess it is our problem, and we are attempting to fix it. The Biden administration continues to subvert the law and implement policies that are detrimental to our border security, our national security, and our overall sovereignty.

This bill includes several provisions to mitigate the misguided and ineffective policies of the Biden administration that have been exploited by transnational criminal organizations, human smugglers, and cartels.

For example, the bill prohibits funds to implement the administration's prosecutorial discretion guidance, which encourages DHS attorneys to administratively close nonpriority cases, allowing aliens to continue living in this country without having any legal basis to do so.

Additionally, this bill includes a provision prohibiting asylum officers from making determinations about an alien's credible fear claims instead of actual immigration judges.

These are only two of the main provisions in the bill that seek to reverse the damage done in the past 2\1/2\ years and halt the migration crisis in its tracks.

To strike these provisions would be to tell our constituents that Congress approves of this administration's catastrophe at the border. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While they may not admit it, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that what is happening at the border right now is nothing short of a catastrophe.

Mayors and Governors throughout this country alike are speaking out on the impact of the illegal migration crisis on communities across the Nation and are calling on this administration to acknowledge and resolve the problem at the border. This amendment would only make the disaster worse.

Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment before you seeks to strike a provision in the bill that requires the prioritization of detention and appropriate GPS monitoring technology for aliens going through immigration proceedings.

As we continue to see record levels of migrant encounters under this administration, and our nondetained docket continues to grow exponentially, we must use every available tool to compel the Department to enforce the law.

Striking the provision will give the Biden administration a free pass to continue releasing migrants into the country, a total disregard of the law. We cannot allow the administration to continue the status quo that has ravaged our communities.

Mr. Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate my distinguished colleague and am always there to work together in a bipartisan fashion to try to fashion something.

She is right. It is long overdue for Congress to address this situation, but unfortunately, this is about appropriations and not authorizations.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, we set out to make precise and calculated cuts in this bill due to CISA's rapid growth over the last few years. The top line serves effectively as a strategic pause and significant budget growth. It is $19 million above the fiscal 2023 enacted level, but $130 million below the President's requests.

This provides CISA the opportunity to mature its operations commensurate with its historic budget growth. This amendment would cut CISA's operation and support budget by 25 percent on top of what we have already done.

We had a debate on a cut of this magnitude during full committee consideration, and I said then, as I do again now, passing this amendment would make our homeland less secure. This mis-, dis-, and mal-information language is strong, and I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for his valuable edits to those provisions during markup, which we made sure we addressed in a more holistic way.

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

Mr. Chair, it is with the utmost respect I speak to my colleague. We have had lengthy debates about this in full committee. I understand and appreciate the desire that he has to defund or at least severely reduce the budget of this agency.

However, we are at a time in America where it serves as a clearinghouse for those rogue nations and bad actors that prey upon Americans on a daily basis. This is something that is not only important for everybody who works in the cyber communities and cyber systems, but also for the schools, hospitals, water and sewage facilities, the gas pipeline, and all those things throughout our country that don't have a safety net. They have to rely on CISA for their information in the hope and support because unfortunately the companies that provide the software do nothing when they are hacked by these outside influences and actors.

All this agency could do and hope to do is promote that clearinghouse, if you will, that platform for which we can all come to an understanding. Bad actors exist and we must prevent it.

I understand and appreciate and will work closely with my colleague to make sure the things he talks about as far as the attacks on First Amendment rights never occur in any agency of the United States.

Mr. Chair, at this time I must urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I understand and join in the outrage shared by my colleagues over the CISA mis-, dis-, and malinformation scandal.

No administration and no government should ever be in the business of labeling or attempting to convince social media companies that First Amendment-protected speech is or is not disinformation.

The government is not the arbiter of the truth, a position that even the ACLU agrees with. That is why we worked diligently to address government censorship concerns in this bill, and I stand by our language.

However, this amendment is not targeted at the policies of the Biden administration that we disagree with. It is targeted at a person who wasn't in office when CISA engaged in mis-, dis-, and malinformation activities. While we might not agree with her policies, the CISA Director has a history of dutiful service to this country, including a long career in the military.

Director Easterly is a West Point graduate, two-time recipient of the Bronze Star, retiring from the Army after more than 20 years in intelligence and cyber operations.

While I empathize with the sponsor on the sentiment behind this amendment, I cannot support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the ranking member.

Mr. Chair, in closing, I disagree. I understand and appreciate the concerns of my colleague and certainly feel that, again, they have been addressed in what we could do within the confines of an appropriations bill. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I empathize with wanting to hold this administration accountable for its many failed border and immigration policies. I also join in the outrage shared by my colleagues over the CISA mis-, dis-, and malinformation scandal.

Labelling Americans' First Amendment-protected speech as mis-, dis-, or malinformation is not a role for any government agency, whether there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House. However, this amendment targets a career civil servant who was not in charge of creating the policy on which we disagree.

We worked diligently in our bill to address the security failures and censorship concerns associated with this administration. I stand by our language.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't want to make any arguments other than to say that I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, Texans have every right to defend and secure their borders, particularly during a time when the White House has abandoned attempts to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws.

Due to the Biden administration's failed policy, States along the border, including Texas, are seeing their resources being severely depleted. They are overrun. Therefore, Governor Abbott did what most responsible, reasonable public servants would do and launched Operation Lone Star. The goal of Operation Lone Star is to stop cartels and criminals from smuggling deadly drugs, weapons, and people into Texas.

As of last week, the multiagency effort resulted in 457,500 apprehensions and more than 34,400 criminal arrests, with more than 31,300 felonies reported. In the fight against fentanyl, Texas law enforcement has seized over 429 million lethal doses of fentanyl.

Due to the rapid and dangerous migrant street releases in Texas, the Governor has recently had to deploy additional buses to Eagle Pass and El Paso to assist those border communities overwhelmed by the influx of migrants. This is a constantly compounding issue that gets forgotten in the beltway because it is out of sight and out of mind.

This administration is putting politics over people, and it has completely abandoned these areas along our southwest border. If this was happening in my backyard, I would want my State to step up, too. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my friend.