H.Res. 723

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding for the USDA Office of Chief Economist to fiscal year 2016 levels, which will save us more than $11 million in 2024.

Now, what is interesting, I have been listening to my colleagues across the aisle saying that it is going to 2001 levels. They don't want 2000 levels. This goes to 2016 levels, so I am hoping that they will support this because our annual discretionary spending has exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response.

No one thought our government was too small before COVID. We are currently spending $400 billion more in fiscal 2023 for the same government we had before, and deficits for this year are expected to exceed $2 trillion.

That is why we have a $33 trillion national debt, and that does not even include the $600-$700 billion in interest that we pay.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels far exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2016, meaning that if we were to shrink the Federal behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months.

This is the first of many amendments that I will be offering to appropriations bills this week intended to reduce spending. My staff and I spent countless hours earlier this year reviewing the prior year's appropriations bills and making recommendations to the Committee on Appropriations. I even filed 521 separate bills to cut spending across the discretionary budget totaling $100 billion in spending reductions for fiscal year 2024.

I am not singling any one office or department out here. We need to tighten our belts across the Federal Government in order to get spending under control.

I will just ask you: How bad is the national debt crisis? The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks that compose the largest central bank in the world have a monopoly on printing paper dollars. It is the world's reserve currency. Yet, its ability to print money and invest it in bonds, the Federal Reserve is now on pace to lose over $100 billion this year.

They lost $53 billion in the last two quarters. They are going to lose over $100 billion.

Why is that? Because Federal spending is out of control. If we are not going to fix it, who is going to fix it? Who is going to start fixing it? It is our job.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chairman, for the last while I have heard my colleagues across the aisle, they were talking about costs, that Republicans want to cut costs, and that we always talk about costs.

Here is my question: What could they do? They are the ones who fostered this massive inflation on us that is imposing terrible, terrible costs on the American people.

The first thing they could do is they could unleash American energy. When you unleash American energy, you reduce the price of the fuels that are necessary for the farmers to produce our food. You reduce the cost of the transports to bring that food to market, and you make our cost structure go down.

That is not necessarily inflation, because the other thing you have to do to bring inflation under control is to bring Federal spending under control.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which restores funding for the National Agricultural Statistics Service to the fiscal year 2019 level. That would result in nearly $13 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024.

Annual discretionary spending, I won't go through that again, what I said last time.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels actually exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2019, meaning that if we were to shrink the Federal behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months.

Now, I want to continue on why this is so doggone important that we take care of this. The proposed funding level for the National Agricultural Statistics Service is a 7.6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 level. So we are actually bumping it slightly above the 2019 level, but we are getting right back to the pre-COVID levels.

Now, let's talk about this for a second. My colleagues across the aisle--I actually heard one of them say in talking about the underlying bill, the main bill, that the Federal Government needed to ``meet the needs of every American.'' I want you to think about what that says. The Federal Government meets the needs of every American.

Who determines what that need is and who pays for that need? Well, our grandchildren must be the ones that they think are going to pay for the current needs because we are borrowing $2 trillion this year; and it will be more than that next year. We are paying interest about $700 billion in 2023. It will be more than that next year.

Let's talk about the Fed again. I mention the Fed just so people can understand that the Fed has now put itself in a precarious position. We always used the Fed. We counted on it--those who wanted to grow government did. They believed in modern monetary theory, that the Fed could just keep printing money, no inflation would result, just money grows on trees, and that we could supply every American with every need that they might have.

So you use the central bank to keep interest rates really low. That made private borrowers really happy because they could service government debt inexpensively.

But what happened? COVID happened, right? And trillions of dollars flooded our economy, and when those trillions of dollars flooded our economy, it devalued our currency and caused inflation to go up because those were nonproductive dollars.

What did the Democrats do last year--because they didn't get their act together on budgeting--they passed a couple of CRs, which led ultimately to the omnibus bill, and that flooded money in there--after COVID was long gone. They added to the inflationary pressures.

I am going to continue this, but for now, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let's talk some more about the Fed and why we are in a world of hurt and why we have to start reducing spending and funding.

We can't fund every project, everything around the world and even in our own country. We send hundreds of billions of dollars out of this country.

Guess what, when the Fed bought $4.7 trillion in additional assets, $2.5 trillion of that was in mortgage-backed securities, and they invested in long-term loans. Then, as inflation pressures up, they kept increasing the prime rate. They are now expecting another increase in the interest rate within the next 2 months. We will have to pay that debt service. That will contribute to the inflationary pressure that we have.

When you screw up your energy policy and you screw up your Federal funding policy, the American people suffer, and they suffer through higher costs due to inflation. That is a hidden tax.

That is why I keep trying to find ways, line items where we can actually provide services but we can reduce the Federal spending to at least make some rational nod toward bringing us back to some sound funding policy, something we haven't seen here in ages.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to fiscal year 2019 levels.

This amendment would direct $157 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024.

Let's talk about this. I have been talking all night about the precarious position our economy is in. I am often baffled by this. I view it as an existential threat, and you know what, bipartisan we have seen national security leaders of this country say our biggest threat is our national debt.

Every year we have a structural deficit. This year we thought it was going to be about $1.7 trillion. CBO revised it to north of $2 trillion, and that is what it is going to be next year.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture has made a habit of disseminating grant funding to organizations intent on perpetuating societal

division in the United States. These include things like a $350,000 funding grant to a Soros-funded nonprofit promoting ``equity'' in community food development projects, another $1.4 million in funds for organizations to advance ``food justice'' in California, and funding to colleges seeking to ``enhance diversity'' in food economics.

The proposed funding level that is made for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is a 17 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 level.

This reduction I propose in my amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars are properly focused on activities related to food and crop development. That is what this agency is supposed to be doing, not wokeifying the money that we give to it.

Well, I want everyone to support this amendment, and I am going continue my talk about our precarious position, which is an existential crisis to the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, over the course of this evening during the debate of the underlying bill it was referred to as being heartless and disrespectful. This amendment was referred to as being disrespectful, as a matter of fact.

This is what I would tell you: You know what is heartless? Heartless is putting our Nation and wrapping it up with flax and cords that we will not soon be able to get out of with constant perpetual debt.

You see inflation, inflation is going to keep going. Inflation is going to keep going because we don't have a great energy policy and we have a terrible Federal spending problem.

We heard on the underlying bill, hey, you know what, we should just raise more taxes. That is what we should be doing. But you know what, we had record revenue, record revenue, and guess what, we continued to increase our structural deficit, which leads to a greater national debt problem.

It isn't that Americans aren't paying enough in taxes. It is a fundamental spending problem. It gets back to what I have been talking about, this modern monetary theory. You heard it just a minute ago. We need to take care of the needs of everybody. Who pays for that? It is obviously not going to be the American people who are living right now. Maybe it is going to be some who are living right now.

We can't fundamentally afford the government my leftist colleagues across the aisle continue to promote. That is what they want. They want massive government. They want government that controls every aspect of everybody's life. Then, they say, that will meet the needs of everybody.

That is not enough. They have to open the southern border, as well. By the time the Biden administration leaves, you will have 10 million encounters at the border. That won't include the got-aways, both known and unknown, which already, under the Biden administration, exceed 2\1/ 2\ million people.

How are you going to pay for that? They never want to tell you how they are going to pay for it because they have no concept of what is facing this country.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding to the Farm Production Conservation Business Center to fiscal 2019 levels. That is right: Take it back to pre-COVID levels.

This amendment would direct nearly $15 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024. My staff and I, earlier in the year, introduced many bills trying to take a line-item approach to the budget to try to reduce spending, to try to bring us back into some rationality, and this is one of the places we found.

The proposed funding level for the Farm Production Conservation Business Center is a nearly 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2019 levels.

The Farm Production Conservation Business Center is a fairly new office within the Department of Agriculture and is intended to support the agency's farmer-facing components. Under the Biden administration, the agency is pushing out taxpayer-funded climate alarmism and messaging to outline how USDA is advancing equity by providing increased financial assistance to historically underserved groups.

The spending reduction in this amendment would ensure that the business center is not abusing its farmer-facing role to promote divisive ideology, as the Biden regime is trying to do, but instead focuses its resources on serving agriculture producers.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to say, I am actually baffled a little bit because it is like we are on the other side of an ocean, an ocean separates us. I never hear my colleagues say that they want to reduce spending on any program. I never hear it. Instead, they

want to continually propose big spending programs that we simply don't have money for, and then they want to do something that is actually self-defeating by increasing taxes.

We have significant revenue. We just outspend the revenue. We outspend it every time.

What happened after COVID? Well, I am proposing we go back to pre- COVID levels. What happened during COVID is that the Federal Reserve had to auction so many treasuries it really had to begin offering higher rates. What did that do? That fueled higher rates.

Now, with rates so much higher, the bank is now forced to borrow against all its prior lending, all its prior investments, which they did at like 1 percent. Now, we are sitting at 5.3 percent.

When you are doing bonds, Mr. Chair, and you know this as well as anybody, your value of your asset has decreased. That is what has happened, and it puts us in massive economic jeopardy. We have to acknowledge that.

That is the reason that the Fed has incurred a net loss of $53.5 billion on interest expense, a trend that is going to continue in this quarter.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record an article by Daniel Horowitz from September 26, 2023.

[From Blaze Media/Opinion & Analysis/Opinion, Sept. 26, 2023]

Horowitz: When Money Printers Can No Longer Print Money

(By Daniel Horowitz)

Just how bad is the national debt crisis? The 12 regional

Federal Reserve Banks that compose the largest central bank

in the world have a monopoly on printing paper dollars, the

world's reserve currency. Yet despite its ability to print

paper and then invest it in bonds, the Federal Reserve is now

on pace to lose money on its own scheme to the tune of over

$100 billion this year.

Thus, the great bailout institution of last resort has now

itself become a further drain on the federal treasury.

Until recently, the Federal Reserve was the ace in the hole

for the governing elites who wanted to grow weaponized

government on the cheap. The central bank was able to keep

interest rates extremely low, which made private borrowers

happy but also serviced government debt inexpensively. And by

using maturity transformation to borrow short and lend long,

the central bank could turn a profit by lending at higher

rates of interest than it borrowed. The net profit was always

deposited into the rapacious accounts of the Treasury

Department to offset a portion of its ballooning debt.

Then came COVID.

COVID ended the Ponzi scheme. In its attempt to permanently

control our lives, the Federal Reserve was forced to pay for

the lockdowns and ultimately lost control of the money

laundering operation. In order to service the debt, the Fed

in less than a year purchased $4.7 trillion in additional

assets, including $2.5 trillion in mortgage-backed

securities. Central bankers invested this money in the form

of long-term loans locked in at very low rates.

Then came the inevitable inflation driven by this very

COVID spending.

The Federal Reserve was forced to auction so many

Treasuries on the market that it had to begin offering higher

rates. Many would also argue that Federal Reserve Chairman

Jerome Powell raised the federal funds rate too quickly under

the false premise that it would stem the tide of the

inflation it created.

Well, now with interest rates so much higher, the bank is

forced to borrow high against all of its prior lending

(investments), which was at a much lower rate. We now have

the ultimate inversion, which is causing severe deficits. In

just the first two quarters of 2023, the Fed has incurred a

net loss of $53.5 billion on interest expense, a trend that

will only be exacerbated with higher rates, a slowing

economy, and a tightening credit market.

The $53 billion loss for the first half of 2023 is on top

of the $15.8 billion net loss in the final quarter of 2022.

This is a big deal. For the first time in its more than 100

years of existence, the money god itself can't print its way

out of insolvency.

To print even more money now will take an already tapped-

out consumer and small business and crush them further with

even higher inflation, tightening of credit, and crushing an

already insolvent housing market.

On top of the Fed's capital deficit is more than $1

trillion in unrealized losses on its $7.6 trillion balance

sheet of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities it

purchased in its System Open Market Account. All those assets

the bank purchased at 1 percent interest are now worth much

less if the bank were to sell them off at 5.3 percent.

Ironically, this is the same insolvency other banks that come

to the Fed for bailouts are facing today.

Yet the Fed simply writes off the loss as it unloads a

small portion of its balance sheet (about 9 percent from its

high in 2022) without using mark-to-market accounting, as

other banks are required to do under the Dodd-Frank law.

Mark-to-market uses the actual market price of the bonds, not

the irrelevant face value. The Fed ignores the market price

of bonds and assumes they are face value.

If the Fed is incurring this much of a deficit, which will

engender more bailouts from the Treasury--rather than the Fed

bailing out the debt-ridden Treasury--imagine how the economy

will look in the coming years. The majority of FOMC members

announced at a Wednesday meeting that they expect another

interest rate hike before the end of the year. Then they

envision the elevated rates to remain at least for a few

years. The capital deficit and unrealized losses on the

balance sheet are going to explode exponentially because of

the yield inversions, which will further exacerbate the debt

tsunami.

Also, even if the Fed itself doesn't raise the funds rate,

the yields on Treasuries must continue to climb just from the

sheer volume of issuance the Fed will offload on the market

to service biblical levels of interest on the debt, now

slated to top $1 trillion every year. There is already a

problem attracting enough buyers--with many foreign

countries, including China and Japan, dumping U.S.

Treasuries. Just wait until these other countries continue

with their plan to move away from the U.S. dollar as the

reserve currency. Yields will need to increase, further

perpetuating and exacerbating the cost of servicing the debt

and the Fed's own fiscal deficit in doing so.

Yields on the two-year Treasury are at the highest level

since 2006. However, 17 years ago, the gross debt was $8.5

trillion, not $33 trillion. Also, we were running $200-$400

billion annual deficits, not $2 trillion deficits. Not to

mention the fact that we didn't have nearly this much debt

and credit crush in the private sector and among households

that are straining banks and individuals to the point of

insolvency. Oh, and we are officially not in a recession and

have relatively low unemployment. Wait until the fun begins

in 2024 and the cost of social programs skyrockets. Even

without any new debt, $7.6 trillion of existing debt will

mature within the next year at much higher interest rates.

In other words, the Fed, which has been the government's

lifeguard for several generations, is now drowning in the

very pool it, along with corrupt politicians in Congress and

the Treasury Department, has created. Who will bail out the

money printer then?

Mr. Chair, let's talk some more about what should be done. We have a structural deficit of $2 trillion. We are spending $700 billion in interest. The Fed is losing money. Our economy is slowing down to boot.

The question is: What could we do? How about we rein in our Federal spending so that the value of our currency doesn't keep dropping like a stone? How about we unleash American energy so that we have pressure to reduce costs on the energy side and have traditional currency protection on the inflation side? That would do it. That would help, but we don't see anything from the Hill from which my colleagues across the way speak. We don't hear from the White House, either.

Mr. Chair, I am urging adoption of this amendment. It is a small measure to reduce a small program in a small way, but it moves us in that direction.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to strike funding for the Food for Peace Title II grant program, which would direct $1.74 billion to deficit reduction.

I will repeat again what has been said so often here: Annual discretionary spending exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response. No one thought our government was too small before COVID, and we are currently spending $400 billion more in fiscal year 2023 for the same government we had before. Deficits exceed $2 trillion.

Let me just make this clear: In 2019, we spent about $4.9 trillion, $4.7- to $4.9 trillion, depends on who is telling you, and our revenue is going to be about $5.2 trillion. Wouldn't it be great to get back to those 2019 levels? Wouldn't it be great to get to the 2019 spending levels with our current revenue levels? Then you would not be increasing your deficit, your structural deficit.

The spending deficits that we have are out of control. They are leading to this massive national debt, which is fueling inflation and is going to be generational theft.

Let's talk about the Food for Peace Title II grant programs. Since the program was established in the 1950s, funding for the program has exploded. The Trump administration's fiscal year 2020 budget request recommended eliminating this program, which is duplicative of other foreign aid programs.

What is interesting, I say ``Trump,'' and you know that is going to set off, oh, no, the Trump derangement syndrome folks, the far left of this body are going to say: Oh, that is crazy.

However, Trump wasn't the first to do it. The Obama administration's 2014 budget request recommended shifting all Food for Peace Title II funds into accounts funded through the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. They cited potential improvements to flexibility, timeliness, and efficiency.

I am urging us to wipe out $1.74 billion in wasteful, duplicative spending and put it into deficit reduction.

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

Mr. Chairman, previously, some of my counterparts in debate have said we should supply every need, the Federal Government should supply every need to every American, and now they want to persist in trying to satisfy the needs and wants of people offshore, as well.

We can't afford to take care of every need of every American today. That is why we have a $2 trillion structural deficit. That does not include the $700 billion that we are spending in interest. We simply cannot afford to keep giving our future away, and that is what we are doing here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am encouraging everyone to support this important amendment. I think it is important, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to strike funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

I appreciate that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) offered an amendment reducing it, and I appreciate that that is now going to be part of the underlying bill since it just passed on voice vote.

My amendment would direct the entire $240 million supporting that program would be used to reduce our deficit in 2024.

When you think about it, Mr. Ogles certainly made a strong case as to why that should be so, but I am going to add just a couple points to it. I am not going to belabor the fact that we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion at the Federal level. That is causing tremendous inflationary pressures, bringing stress to every American family.

What I am going to talk about instead is what happens in any Federal bureaucracy, what we see government do constantly. Mr. Ogles talked about the negative policy aspects of it, but I will just cover briefly what happens in the Federal bureaucracy on the spending side of it.

This particular program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program first received appropriations in fiscal year 2004, just 20 years ago, 20 short years ago. The bill set aside $50 million to carry out the program. That was the program, $50 million. Help around the world ostensibly, right?

However, what happens to Federal bureaucracies? They grow like Topsy. This one has grown to $240 million annually.

The Trump administration's 2018 budget, pre-COVID budget, request recommended that the program be eliminated as it ``lacks evidence that the program is being effectively implemented to reduce food insecurity.''

Additionally, the program primarily works by donating food produced in the United States to communities in need around the world, but we have already heard the seven nations identified. It is a great deal for U.S. agricultural producers whose surplus is purchased by the Federal Government for use in the program, but the provision of free food, as Mr. Ogles so eloquently pointed out, is required to be delivered, and that causes native, local production to decline in those States.

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

Mr. Chair, why else might we want to eliminate this program? The provision of free food to these seven nations on this list, which is required to be delivered in a not-so-timely manner on U.S.-flagged ships, distorts food production markets in those nations receiving aid, and it actually increases the cost.

It is a classic ``give a man a fish, feed him for a day'' problem. The program isn't eliminating food insecurity. It is slow. It is costly. It is growing. It pushes out local production. Quite frankly, we simply can't afford it anymore.

At some point, we are going to have to say we are having trouble funding everything in our own country, and now we are going to send it abroad. That is something I don't think the American people stand for.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to restore funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to fiscal year 2019 pre-COVID levels.

This amendment would direct $77 million to deficit reduction in fiscal year 2024. Annual discretionary spending exploded over the course of the COVID-19 response. No one thought our government was too small before COVID. We are currently spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in fiscal year 2023 for the same government functions that we had before.

Deficits are now projected to exceed $2 trillion for this fiscal year. Recently, the U.S. eclipsed $33 trillion in debt, accounting for nearly $100,000 per U.S. citizen.

Earlier in the debates today, we were told that if we go down this road, we are going to see a threatened credit rating reduction. We have already seen that. Fitch already did it. Moody's is threatening to do it again, and why are they doing it again? It is because, as they said the last time they downgraded us, we don't have an effective plan to handle and reduce our Federal deficit.

We just don't have a plan anymore. The plan is to actually increase our deficit, and my bill attempts to take one small bite at trying to shrink that deficit, that structural deficit, that leads to the gross national debt problem we have every year.

Revenue in fiscal year 2022 levels actually exceeded our Federal spending in fiscal year 2019. What that means is if we were to shrink the Federal spending behemoth back to those pre-COVID levels, we might just be able to avoid adding to our national debt for the next 12 months. That is all I am asking.

I am begging us, can we do it for a month, 2 months, 3 months? You will see that this country will not fall apart. Instead, it will prosper and grow, and we would be better off.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend, the Agriculture Committee chairman, and his opposition, but I must respectfully disagree. The proposed funding level for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is a nearly 30 percent increase over the fiscal year 2019 levels.

The CFTC is following in the footsteps of the SEC under the Biden administration with efforts to mandate, without statutory authority, an onerous climate disclosure regime on the private sector.

Last year, the CFTC solicited comments on climate-related financial risk. Conservative attorneys general, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, forcefully pushed back, stating that attempts to mandate disclosure through rulemaking or through another regulatory framework would clearly implicate the major questions doctrine, raised First Amendment concerns related to compelled speech, and stated that courts would find climate-related action to be arbitrary and capricious.

Other reporting suggests that the CFTC is aggressively pursuing enforcement action and hefty fines over minor technical reporting requirements. That is typical of the bureaucratic regime established under the Biden administration.

Adoption of my amendment would ensure that the CFTC is properly utilizing its resources to fulfill its mission of fostering open, competitive, and financially sound futures and option markets, not becoming the Biden administration's ESG enforcer.

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

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

Mr. Chair, every day when I anticipate the Agriculture appropriations bill coming to the floor, I wake up with my usual admonition that this is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Today as we take up this Agriculture appropriations bill, it stretches my faith to say that this is a good day because I rise in very, very strong opposition to H.R. 4368.

As the ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I am extremely disappointed to see this bill does not meet the needs of Americans who rely on this funding to ensure safe food and medicines, healthy and resilient farmlands, and strong rural infrastructure.

The programs contained in the Agriculture funding bill are important for all Americans, and they affect our country in so many ways.

These programs help Americans by helping American farmers produce the highest quality, safest, most abundant, and most economical food and fiber in the world through the assistance provided through the Farm Service Agency in almost every county in America.

They help future generations by funding conservation practices, which preserve our farmland and our national resources for years to come.

These programs are essential to those who live in rural areas and ensure quality of life through access to clean drinking water, electricity, telecommunication, broadband, sewer infrastructure, and housing.

They help feed every American, including our most vulnerable families, children, and seniors in difficult times.

They fund USDA meat and poultry inspectors and FDA inspectors of all other food products so that the food on Americans' tables is safe and nutritious. It funds the CFTC and the Farm Credit Administration, so this bill affects our financial space.

I cannot think of a funding subcommittee with as broad a reach as our bill has. A bill with such a broad reach deserves to have these programs adequately funded.

However, the bill passed in our full committee markup only provided $17.8 billion in funding, which takes us back to the 2007 funding level.

That is entirely inadequate for the needs of the American people, and it had no chance of being passed into law when it came out of committee.

Unfortunately, rather than moving in a more productive direction, the majority used a procedural gimmick to impose even greater cuts of 69 percent to the Food for Peace program and 14.2 percent to all other discretionary programs.

Instead of improving the bill, the Rules Committee made it even worse. In total, the cuts to the bill have reduced funding 41 percent lower than last year. The bill before us today will take us back to 2001 levels. That is totally irresponsible.

The bill will harm rural America by taking money from programs supporting rural communities such as it cuts $500 million from the Rural Energy for America Program, the REAP program, and it eliminates grants under the program, which will raise the energy costs for over 15,000 rural farmers and small businesses.

It takes $1 billion from rural electric cooperatives, 900 cooperatives that serve over 40 million people in 48 States.

It slashes $800 million from the WIC program, which drastically also cuts the cash value voucher benefit for fruit and vegetable purchases, affecting nearly 5 million hungry women and children.

It strips loan assistance needed by 100,000 economically distressed farmers, which could literally cost folks the family farm.

It cuts rural development programs by over 40 percent, which means thousands of rural families will no longer be able to get a loan to afford a home.

Hundreds of projects meant to provide clean water and wastewater systems will be eliminated, and thousands of families will not be able to turn on the tap and count on drinkable water.

It completely guts the Food for Peace international food aid program. It cuts the McGovern-Dole program by 14 percent, which will further exacerbate the global hunger and instability and the risk of conflicts abroad, which will weaken American security.

The bill also strips the Secretary, as you have heard, of discretionary use of the Commodity Credit Corporation funding.

The CCC is a tool authorized by law to benefit our farmers and the thousands of church and community food banks that it helps to fund.

No matter which party is in the White House, the only folks that suffer when any administration is not allowed to use the CCC at its discretion are our ag producers and American families.

Our farmers benefited tremendously under the Trump administration when Secretary of Agriculture Perdue used the CCC to give our farmers relief from the trade wars with China.

As I look at it, the path this bill has taken so far and the proposed amendments that we will see tonight would make it even worse.

I ask myself for any farmers that are watching tonight who are trying to do what is best for their land, for their businesses and their family, what will they see?

For people in rural communities facing the challenges of providing clean water, affordable housing, and dependable utilities, what will they see?

For those same communities trying to ensure that their law enforcement and first responders have the vehicles, the communications equipment, and the other resources they need to keep their rural communities safe, what will they see?

For struggling families trying to put food on the table for their children, what will they see?

Sadly, if those Americans are watching us tonight, what they will see is a majority which is focused on overriding medical science to take away a woman's freedom to control their own reproductive health choices, but not a majority focused on ensuring that those women and their children are able to afford food.

They will see a majority that is focused on an undefined so-called critical race theory while pushing this bill to jeopardize the safety of our food and our medicine, slowing down our supply chain, and ironically, making these things harder to get and more expensive to buy.

Make no mistake, the majority would have a person who is watching at home to believe that this bill fights against some undeserving citizens who don't need the help. The hard truth is that this bill is a nuclear bomb against the needs of every single American.

The majority wants the people to be distracted by their culture war while they cut the crucial programs that every American depends on for the safest, the highest quality of affordable food, fiber, and medicine in the world. It appears that tonight we will see more amendments from the majority that further push the bill in a terribly harmful direction.

It astonishes me that we are 4 days away from a government shutdown, yet we are not debating a bipartisan bill to keep the government open. Instead, we are debating an extreme messaging bill that does nothing to bring us closer to the bipartisan agreement we will need to eventually pass a 4-year government spending bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a responsible bill that meets the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my personal staff, including Tynesha Boomer, and the subcommittee staff, including Martha Foley, Alex Swann, and Tyler Coe for their hard work on this bill. I thank the majority staff for their efforts. I pray that the majority Members of Congress and the majority of Congress will have an epiphany and deliver a much better work product to the American people by the end of this funding process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we are in this deficit situation largely because we don't collect the revenue from the people who owe taxes, the wealthy millionaires and billionaires that the Republican majority is protecting by not funding enough agents to collect the money for the Internal Revenue Service so that we can fund the government.

We wouldn't have the deficit that we have today were they willing to put sufficient agents on the job to be able to collect the money that is lawfully due. People should pay their taxes and they shouldn't protect those tax cheats.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and a member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and a member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

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

Every time I hear Republicans talk, they are talking about the cost of everything going up. Assuming, which is not true, that the $6 billion is the same as the last year, they say over and over and over how much the cost of living has gone up, how much more it costs to buy groceries. That is what they talk about every single day when they are not talking about what they want to slash.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and a hardworking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

I hope that the people who are watching tonight will take note of the fact that they don't have to take our word for it. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill, and they have

scored the manager's amendment. The gentleman says that the bill is $22 billion. After the amendments that they are going to be offering on this bill tonight, CBO has scored it at $15.1 billion. It is clearly not what he is representing. After the manager's amendment, which is the first amendment that we will be considering tonight, the CBO has scored this bill at $15.1 billion, which is a drastic cut to the needs of the American people.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

Mr. Chair, over the past two decades, our country and the agriculture industry have grown. Our population has grown, yet this bill initially withdrew funding for America's agriculture, as you have heard, back to 2006 funding levels with an allocation of $17.1 billion, which is nearly $8 billion below last year's enacted bill.

Sadly, we are here tonight with a bill that the majority made even worse this past weekend by gutting Congress' commitment to American farmers, producers, rural communities, and families to levels last seen in 2001. This bill keeps moving in the wrong direction.

Also, many of the amendments that we will be debating tonight, which lower this allocation much lower than the American people need, will be an attempt to circumvent the ongoing negotiations in the House authorizing committee, the Agriculture Committee, which is working so desperately to get our farmers, our rural communities, and our lenders in America our 2023 farm bill, which is the blueprint that our farmers and our stakeholders need to plan for agriculture in America going forward.

This will jeopardize the consensus that we hope to build and to pass for the 2023 farm bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill. Let's send it back to the committee, and let's begin to put together a better work product for the American people.

This bill is a disgrace. It really does not rise to the level that the American people deserve. We have to continue to keep our farmers and Americans in a position to consume and produce the highest quality, the safest, the most abundant food and fiber anywhere, and to have the safest medications and medical devices.

Mr. Chair, I urge us to defeat this. We need to do better, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment includes 42 amendments--5 bipartisan, 17 Republican, 20 Democratic.

The agriculture funding bill has historically been a bipartisan bill, and we will need to channel that same cooperation if my colleagues want to pass appropriations bills into law.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendments and his cooperation in having this bipartisan en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment would cut funding for the Office of the Chief Economist by an additional 46 percent. That is almost half.

The Office of the Chief Economist provides advice and counsel to the Secretary on matters affecting the economy with respect to the Agriculture Department. This bill already guts funding for USDA. Any further cuts just make a bad bill worse.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It is bad for the country. It is bad for the USDA.

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

Mr. Chairman, when you cut the energy assistance programs for our farmers and our rural communities, you raise the cost of their production. When you raise the cost of their production, you raise the cost of the products they produce to put on the shelves of the grocery stores. This is not a good thing, so I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I urge the defeat of this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would cut funding for the Office of Civil Rights at USDA by an additional 19 percent. The bill already guts funding for USDA. Any further cuts would just make a bad bill worse.

The Office of Civil Rights at USDA is there for one purpose, and that is to make sure that every American has an equal opportunity to access the programs of USDA regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of national origin.

USDA over the past decades has been required to pay billions of dollars to folks who were stakeholders who were denied equal opportunities to access these programs. If we cut this, we will be hamstringing the ability of USDA to do the right thing. We want to stop this before it spreads. It has already done too much damage to access for minorities, for women, and for various ethnic minorities, so we must fund this office.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is another amendment that does nothing to serve farmers, nothing to serve rural America, and it has no place in this bill. We should fund the USDA in a way that makes its programs accessible and available to every single American.

Mr. Chair, I urge that this amendment be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It will cut funding for the Natural Agricultural Statistics Service and the Census of Agriculture by an additional 8 percent.

This bill already cuts too much funding from USDA, and any further cuts, again, will make a bad bill worse.

The Office of National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Census of Agriculture serve very important functions.

The American people need to know--we need to know what we grow; we need to know who is producing what we grow; we need to know where it is grown; we need to know what the country will need.

This office provides very important data that informs us; it informs governmental entities; it informs our private sector; it informs the consumers. We don't need any more cuts here.

I urge Members to defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Cutting funding for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture by an additional 17 percent is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

The bill already guts funding for USDA, but the NIFA, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture provides grants for research to our colleges and universities, and particularly the 1890s institutions that were created under the Second Morrill Act.

This is a very useful agency. It provides essential research, the tool that keeps American agriculture on the cutting edge. In America, we produce the safest, the highest quality of food and fiber anywhere in the industrialized world, and we do it because we fund research.

Our research is cutting edge. Why would we cut it by 17 percent? We need research like we never needed it before because of the climate challenges that we are facing. We have got challenges that we must overcome in order to continue to produce the food to feed the people in this country and around the world.

This research is essential, and we need to continue to fund it. We don't need this 17 percent cut.

I urge the defeat of this amendment. Let's defeat this amendment, and let's pass a useful bill that is responsible that meets the needs of the American people and the American producers.

Mr. Chair, I urge that this amendment be defeated, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, these amendments just go to undermine the ability of USDA to do what it is supposed to do for the American people.

This is another amendment that cuts funding, and if you keep cutting funding, you will totally make this agency unable to deliver on its promises to the American people.

Mr. Chair, it is a bad amendment. It is a cut that doesn't need to happen. I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Cutting funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service by an additional 8 percent will just, again, make it worse.

This is a very important agency. It provides very valuable services to our communities as well as to our farmers. You have a number of programs that are so vitally important.

They have the conservation innovation programs.

They have the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which helps farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to integrate conservation into their working lands.

They have the grants that support the development of new tools and new approaches, practices and technologies to further our natural resources conservation on private lands.

They have the Conservation Stewardship Program, which builds on conservation efforts to strengthen the farmers' operations.

They have the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which is a Federal emergency recovery program that helps local communities recover after natural disasters strike. Look at what we have endured over the past year, the past 2 years. Communities have been struck by floods, wildfires, and hurricanes.

We have problems, and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program is there. It needs to be fully funded, particularly this year with what we have experienced with climate change.

They have watershed and flood prevention programs, the wetland reserve easements. We have to help with this. We have to protect our forests and, of course, the forest programs and the grazing funds for our livestock.

This is just penny-wise and pound-foolish. We must protect the conservation programs because they protect our environment and our farmers and help them to be sustainable.

Mr. Chair, this is a bad amendment. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, this bill, our funding bill, funds rural America. We, as Members of Congress, ought to be committed to ensuring that people who live in rural communities are not disadvantaged simply because of their rural ZIP Code.

I urge us to defeat this amendment because affordable, decent housing is something that every American ought to have access to regardless of where he or she lives.

Of course, this funding for rural America is comparable to the same programs that urban Americans have access to. It provides support for families so that they can afford to have decent housing.

To cut this is to punish people who need help for decent housing and who happen to live in rural America. This is something we should not do.

Rural Americans should have the same opportunities to realize the American Dream as any other American anyplace they live.

Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is a bitter, nasty amendment that hurts people who need a hand up.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated. It will cut funding for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service by an additional 44 percent.

Agricultural cooperatives provide effective marketing and local supplies and services to their member-owners. Cooperatives bring electricity, eConnectivity, affordable housing, capital, financial services, telecommunications, healthcare, food, hardware, building supplies, and countless other goods and services for people who live in rural communities.

An example for electricity: There are 900 co-ops, electric membership cooperatives, that serve 42 million people in this country in 48 of the 50 States, and they cover 51 percent of the land area in the United States of America.

We need the Rural Business-Cooperative Service to help support these rural co-ops that help bring business and help marketing in our rural communities.

Agriculture is a very, very lucrative business, it happens in our rural communities for the most part, and we need this cooperative service and we need the support for it.

Mr. Chair, this is a bad amendment. It is penny-wise and pound- foolish, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I certainly rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for the Foreign Agriculture Service, which reduces the services promoting United States agricultural exports, developing overseas markets, and increasing global food security.

This cut would directly harm American farmers because they would have less opportunities to market their commodities abroad. There is already a 14.15 percent cut from the House levels imposed by the majority in this bill, and these cuts would only further harm our American farmers.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to hear the discussion about a $2 trillion deficit when that was created by the tax cut that they passed in the last administration--$2 trillion because they cut the taxes and reduced the amount of revenue. Come on.

You balance the budget with revenues as well as with spending reductions. Let's be real here. This is just a subterfuge. We need to defeat this amendment and we need to move forward and try to produce an agriculture bill that really addresses the needs of the American people in 2023.

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

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

As a reminder, the bill already cuts the Food for Peace program by 69 percent from the level passed in the full committee. During a time of increased need and difficult decisions ahead for prioritizing funding from this program, this amendment would further cut Food for Peace. Additionally, today, we have already considered three other stand-alone amendments to cut the program.

I not only oppose this amendment due to its effects on people without food security across the globe, I also oppose it due to its effect on our farmers here at home. U.S. commodities are a key pillar of this program, and cutting funding would directly harm those farmers who produce these commodities that go to this program. There is an international aid shortfall of commodities, including millions of commodities that American farmers proudly produce, such as wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, lentils, beans, and peas.

This amendment shortchanges America's farmers as well as America's values, our Judeo-Christian values. I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As I said in my opening statement, this bill already cuts the Agriculture funding bill back to a level last seen in 2001.

Apparently, those cuts are not enough because this amendment would cut 50 percent from the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. That is a 50 percent cut from funding supporting schoolchildren abroad.

This is a proven, successful program, a bipartisan program which takes concrete steps to ensure that the program activities continue after U.S. support is no longer provided. This money is not wasted. It is not indefinite for any one location. It is a sound investment to promote the health and education of schoolchildren, especially girls, in need around the globe.

We are 4 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of debating a bipartisan path forward, we are debating further cuts to programs that have broad, bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary and harmful.

While there is a global commodity shortage and conflict that fuels hunger around the world, this bill has already been cut by 14.15 percent. Further cuts will only cause further impacts to efforts to improve the food security and education of children around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Madam Speaker, let me announce breaking news.

I don't want to see the government shut down.

Democrats don't want to see the government shut down.

The American people don't want to see the government shut down.

I am standing with the American people and cities and hamlets and villages and counties and States.

What has failed to be enunciated, I say to my friend on the other side, is that we had a deal. We should have been finished with this.

The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States already agreed in the spring on what the numbers would be, what we were going to do for the government to keep operating. It has already been done.

We are here now because of the upheaval of MAGA Republicans talking about undermining a deal that was made on behalf of the good people of this Nation. We are facing an uphill battle.

We just came out of the Budget Committee where they are fighting to eliminate $400 million in Medicare cuts and $2 trillion in cuts to mandatory health spending.

The reason why we are on the floor now is because we believe in the people back home. They can't afford another unfunded mandate. Cities are now carrying over their fund balances with Federal dollars that Democrats were able to give to keep them alive. If we have these unfunded mandates, childcare goes out the window; Active-Duty military have problems with getting paid, our veterans don't get their

services; Social Security payments may be up in the air; the burden of having to pay money for unfunded mandates; the hanger-on amendments that are being put into these bills are just tragic.

Law enforcement may be impacted negatively. Those who are in need of getting violent criminals off the street may be put in jeopardy. People who are working-class Americans going to community colleges are in jeopardy of getting their resources.

Madam Speaker, let me just say this: No more unfunded mandates. Let's do the deal that we have and save the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on these four appropriation bills before us today: H.R. 4365-- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4367--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024; and H.R. 4368--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.

I oppose the Rule and the underlying legislation as it pertains to H.R. 4365, for the following reasons:

The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan and damaging policies under our noses.

The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who sit on the very committee this bill originated from.

In order to further promote a culture war, the members who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.

First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive healthcare regardless of their station.

Women currently make up 1 in 5 members of our military.

Denying them their previously promised ability to check their reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly irresponsible. The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would strip away.

Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly victimized by Republican agendas around the country.

Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with respect and equality, which this bill does not do.

This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender dysphoria. Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a serious issue and has led to 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary young people attempting suicide in the past year.

Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect the wellbeing of ALL citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and ideologies.

The language in this legislation would further embolden those who wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.

This is unacceptable.

The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not promote the diversity of our nation but rather seeks to suppress it.

This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way Republicans sought to eliminate ``Critical Race Theory?'' or ``CRT''.

Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in education.

Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society; it is not an attack on white people for their history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.

Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash over the negative to present a false narrative.

At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against a Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected accurately in the history of this multicultural nation.

Another issue with this Defense Appropriations bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt military equipment to be more climate friendly.

Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and efforts.

The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.

It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States Army.

This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a net zero future.

In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than most countries.

But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to scale back on their emissions, certain members in Congress want to limit their choice.

One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4365 that was made in order by the committee.

The Jackson Lee amendment H.R. 4365 seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research.

This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military, who are up to 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.

I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.

This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.

Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I am very proud of the work that I and Congress has done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, but there are still improvements to be made.

The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.

While this amendment is important, the negatives of this defense appropriations bill vastly outweigh the positives.

As with all the additional appropriation bills on the floor today, the Administration likewise strongly opposes the passage of this bill for a myriad of reasons--including the following:

Border Management Funding: It is disappointing this bill does not include funding for a new Southwest Border Contingency Fund. This fund would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the Southwest border and fulfill its critical and complementary missions of securing the border, performing efficient and effective screening and processing, and meeting the Nation's humanitarian obligations.

Shelter and Services Program: It also shameful that this bill seeks to eliminate the Shelter and Services Program, a priority grant program for DHS that provides temporary food, shelter, and other services to state and local entities and non-governmental organizations that provide support to migrants who are released from DHS custody. This grant program is a key mechanism for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to relieve overcrowding in short-term holding facilities.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Funding: This bill further fails to provide appropriations for USCIS application processing and grant programs. Without this funding, USCIS would be unable to improve its operations and the application processing backlog would continue to grow in FY 2024.

Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVFP) Grants: It is absolutely abhorrent that this bill eliminates the TVTP grant program. TVTP provides funding to nonprofits and to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to develop multidisciplinary targeted violence and terrorism prevention capabilities in local communities, to pilot innovative prevention approaches, and to identify prevention best practices that can be replicated in communities across the Nation.

Immigration Enforcement Prohibitions and Requirements: I also stand with the Administration in strongly opposing section 220 of the bill, which would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using appropriated funds to carry out the Administration's immigration enforcement priorities, as well as the requirement in the bill for ICE to fill 41,500 detention beds and enroll all non-detained migrants in Alternatives to Detention. These requirements are unrealistic, pose implementation challenges, and would dilute the Department's focus on protecting America from security threats.

Restrictions on Alternatives to Detention (ATD): This bill wrongfully eliminates funding for the Young Adult Case Management Program, as well as for Operation Horizon, and grant funds for a case management pilot program. These restrictions would simultaneously strain limited resources and remove valuable flexibilities in managing low-risk populations.

Limiting Interior Transportation: Prohibiting the transport of noncitizens to interior locations risks overcrowding at border processing sites and other DHS facilities, threatening to exacerbate life and safety concerns of those in custody.

Restrictions on Access to Healthcare: Section 222 of the bill is also particularly harmful, which would make it more difficult to access lawful reproductive healthcare. I stand in strong opposition to this section, which targets LGBTQI+ individuals who are in ICE detention.

Prohibiting the Implementation of the Asylum Processing Rule: This bill further prohibits the use of funds to implement the Administration's Asylum Processing Rule--which serves as a key part of the Administration's efforts to streamline the immigration system, allowing USCIS Asylum Officers to hear and decide certain asylum claims in the first instance.

Prohibiting the Implementation of the Legal Pathways Rule: I further oppose the bill's prohibition on using funds to implement the Administration's Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule. The Rule encourages migrants to use lawful, safe, and orderly processes for entering the United States; imposes conditions on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so or fail to seek protection in a country through which they transit; and supports the swift return of migrants who do not have valid protection claims. The bill would undermine DHS's continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.

Restricting the Use of the CBP One Application: I also strongly oppose the bill's restrictions on using the CBP One application. A key part of the Administration's efforts to foster fair and orderly conditions at the border, the CBP One application allows border officials to screen migrants seeking asylum along the Southwest border, and issue them a document to appear in court upon their arrival.

Border Wall: Lastly, I oppose the homeland security appropration bill for its rescession and reappropriation of $2.1 billion in border wall funding. Building a border wall is not a serious policy solution nor is it a responsible use of Federal funds.

While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 in order, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.

The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetic fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Lastly, as it pertains to the bill to determine appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for the 2024 fiscal year, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

While I am again grateful the Rules committee made in order my Jackson Lee Amendment, listed as No. 18 in the Harris (MD)--En Bloc, this bill seeks to return America's agriculture back to 2006 funding levels--with an allocation of $17.1 billion, nearly $8 billion below last year's enacted bill.

The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funding that provides grant research financial support for ``1890s Land Grant Universities,'' which are 28 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This amendment also proposes decreasing funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities' (APLU) Council of 1890s includes all Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that are land-grant universities.

Under the Morrill Act of 1890, at least 19 universities have been designated with land-grant status. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities--Excellence in Research HBCU-EiR program was established in response to direction provided in the Senate Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Report (Senate Report 115-139). That initiative was built on prior and continuing efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to strengthen research capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

The Jackson Lee Amendment would provide sufficient funding and guidance to enable the NSF to be successful with the HBCU Excellence in Research program.

This amendment would further provide opportunities for both public and private HBCUs, particularly for those who have not been successful in competing with larger NSF Research & Related Activities.

Increasing Funding for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that provides grant research would help to stimulate sustainable improvement in research and development capacities of HBCUs.

By increasing funding for relevant agencies that provide appropriate financial support for these historically underserved institutions, we can ensure that federal funds are redirected toward more critical funding needs of the American people.

However, the proposed underlying bill as is would mean a pull back on investment, slashing the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers.

H.R. 4368 rescinds $500 million from the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP), which helps farmers facing high input costs.

Many provisions in this bill seek to limit access to viable programs and put many out of reach of energy efficient projects that help American farmers to lower their energy bills and live decent lives.

For everyday rural Americans, the implementation of this bill would have a substantially negative impact on their daily livelihood. These communities rely on crucial infrastructure, from water and wastewater systems to high-speed internet.

However, these infrastructure projects require huge upfront costs that smaller tax bases of rural communities cannot bear alone.

H.R. 4368 would cut federal grants to community facilities by a whopping 90 percent, obstructing the progress in bringing affordable health care to underserved and rural communities, and it will cut rural water and waste disposal loans by 30 percent and rural waste disposal grants by 36 percent.

All these senseless cuts to funding amount to 325 crucial projects for rural water and wastewater systems that simply will not have the funding to be implemented.

This bill also seeks to eliminate funding for the Distressed Communities program, which means hundreds of small local governments will not be able to renovate their systems to meet EPA standards for getting arsenic and lead out of their drinking water systems.

The cumulative and direct impact of these policies on the American people will be devastating. Thousands of American families could lose access to reliable sources of water, not knowing if they could turn on the spigot and get clean, safe water to drink or complete a myriad of other essential daily tasks.

H.R. 4368 further limits funding for Rural Electric Cooperatives that help close the gaps in our power grid across the country. Over 900 rural electric cooperatives serve 42 million people across 48 states-- including 92 percent of persistent poverty counties--those who can least afford to build and maintain this crucial infrastructure. These Rural Electric Cooperatives play vital roles in ensuring that rural communities have access to affordable energy.

Additionally, H.R. 438 will contribute to food insecurity in our country. The bill calls for new work requirements for SNAP recipients, which exacerbates the cycle of poverty--particularly in rural communities.

We cannot deny the fact that SNAP recipients who are able to work, do work. However, even with a full-time job, many Americans, especially those in our rural communities, struggle to earn enough to escape poverty.

This is not an issue of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, but of limited job opportunities, cut-back work hours, and other extenuating factors.

America cannot thrive if Americans are hungry, and this bill will take food out of the mouths of over 6 million Americans who will lose SNAP benefits due to the increased work requirements.

If this bill passes, it will rescind $500 million dollars in WIC funding, underfunding the account for 2024 directly affecting nearly 5 million hungry women and children.

H.R. 4368 will reduce levels for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by $1.2 billion--hurting both families and farmers.

As a result, 4.6 million of our people would lose out on produce and our farmers would lose an expected $1.2 million dollars in revenue.

Not only that, the nearly 30 percent cut to single family direct housing loans--from $1.25 billion in FY 2023 to $900 million in FY 2024--will make it harder for rural Americans to afford to buy a house.

This means that over 2800 rural families will not be able to get financing to put a roof over their heads; our farmers, producers, and rural communities deserve a more reliable partner in our Congress.

While it is without question that the USDA has a long and storied history of discrimination, Congress, however, has always been a steadfast partner and cornerstone of this country's agricultural industry. This appropriations bill, H.R. 4368, however, seeks to undermine enduring efforts of this Congress to ensure equal opportunity and access for every American.

These appropriations should be a reliable means by which we help Americans from all walks of life; unfortunately, the Republican proposed bill before us today does not meet the moment.

Too much is at stake--from the food we eat, to the medicine and medical devices on which we rely, and the fiber and materials that help clothe and build our country, and our national security. Americans deserve better.

America cannot permit a child, a family, or a small business that has their potential to be limited, and opportunities curtailed simply because they are located in a Rural Free Delivery (RFD) zip code.

This appropriations bill presented to us today takes food out of the mouths of hungry people, creates barriers for women who need access to medication, raises energy costs for rural Americans, and makes it harder for small farmers and poultry producers to meet their basic needs.

We can do better. We are better than this. The American people deserve better.

I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against this cruel proposal.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation for all four appropriation bills.

Madam Speaker, I just got off the telephone with one of my chief law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas, in Harris County, who just simply begged us not to shut down the government.

As everyone knows, I was on the floor just an hour or so ago saying, breaking news, I am against a government shutdown. We will fight against the government shutdown. My good friend on the other side of the aisle is complaining that the Senate did their work with such an amazing, overwhelming majority.

Let me tell you how we can solve that before I get into discussion of why we are standing here today. Put the Senate bill on the floor. That is the rules that are the operational underpinnings of the House and Senate. They send it over, and we put it on the floor. If you don't like it, you change it and send it back. That way, you are engaged in stopping the shutdown.

However, if we sit here tonight and do nothing, the government shutdown, in particular, is going to impact the gross domestic product from 2 to 6 percentage points or $2- to $6 billion in lost output. That is people without jobs, resulting in the creation of 120,000 fewer private-sector jobs.

In addition, things like Medicare and Medicaid are going to be in jeopardy. Our economic security will be in jeopardy. Education and training will be in jeopardy, infrastructure dollars; and, particularly, my seniors and others in need of Social Security checks are just going to be out in the cold.

Combining, however, the bills that my friends want us to move on, they attack women's reproductive rights, they attack the LGBTQ+ community, who are continuously victimized for medical care that they need. They talk about Homeland Security, and it is completely untenable that they exclude funding for a new southwest border contingency fund that would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the southwest border. They cut out shelter and services programs. It is shameful to eliminate those programs that provide temporary food and shelter.

Madam Speaker, in addition--can you believe it?-- they slash or eliminate the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers under the agriculture bill; and then targeting violence and terrorism prevention grants, they take that out.

What are we talking about here? Let's deal with the CR from the Senate. You don't like it, add something to it, and send it back. Today is September 26. We will be able to say to the American people, we are adults, and we can stop the shutdown.

Let's go to work. These bills have to go back to the table again. I want to make sure we don't have a shutdown, and we can do it with the Senate CR right now.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 723 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of order in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, the question before the House of Representatives is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 723, the rule that is before us, a rule that we are looking to advance this evening to advance four appropriations bills that, when combined with the appropriations bill we passed in July, would fund 73 percent of government.

Meanwhile, the United States Senate has passed no appropriations bills, and in fact, sent a continuing resolution to the floor just now, just this evening, having not done its job to pass appropriations bills.

The fact of the matter is the waiver we are talking about here in the rules is a prophylactic waiver that my colleagues used all the time when they were in the majority. They know full well that is what they are doing. This is dilatory. This is purposeful. I would do it too if I didn't have all my folks back for the vote. That is what I would do. That is the reality of what we are talking about here.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about unfunded mandates. Let's talk about unfunded mandates.

Let's talk about all of the subsidies that are going out for electric vehicles to subsidize the elite in this country that make over $200,000 and $250,000 a year.

Let's talk about the subsidies, 90 percent of the corporate subsidies going to billion-dollar corporations.

Let's talk about the mandates in the form of vaccine mandates, mask mandates, and all of the mandates during COVID that shut down the largest economy that this world has ever known.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about a shutdown. Yet, they are the masters of shutdown. They shut down and brought to a halt the great American economy resulting in exactly what you are experiencing right now: what the American people are feeling in terms of inflation, in terms of inability to afford homes, inability to afford gasoline, inability to afford power. Those are the mandates that the American people are concerned about. Those are the unfunded mandates that are killing their way of life right now at home.

That is the simple fact.

My colleagues are talking about the government and what it might cost if there is a government shutdown Saturday. Let's be very clear. If there is a shutdown on Saturday, it is because President Biden, Chuck Schumer, and my Democratic colleagues would prefer to shut down the government of the United States than shut down the border of the United States and protect the American people.

That is the simple truth. That is how there would be a resulting shutdown on Saturday.

They lament what might be the impact on government, and that is because they have a government, the American people have a government that is on autopilot. We have a government that is so big and is funded with mandatory spending and is on autopilot such that you cannot constrain it.

The American people are asking why. The American people are asking what can you do about it.

I will give you the answer: My Democratic colleagues want more of the same. That is why our Democratic leadership in the United States Senate has put forward a continuing resolution on the floor of the Senate just now, in the last hour, that will perpetuate the status quo, will continue to fund government exactly as it was funded last December at the obscene levels of that $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

They are going to send that bill over here to the House and say to the American people they want status quo, business as usual, and they are going to pile on additional supplemental funding. That is their response to what the American people are feeling and seeing.

I, if I were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would also want to have a dilatory vote because I would not have actual solutions for the American people.

What we are trying to put forward here, again, are four appropriations bills that fund 73 percent of the government when combined with MILCON-VA, which we passed in July. That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to go ahead and move to. They want to put forward a dilatory point of order because they don't have answers for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a dilatory tactic by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I wouldn't want to speak about what is going on either.

I wouldn't want to speak about the story this afternoon of Hunter Biden receiving a $250,000 wire originating in Beijing with the beneficiary address listed as Joe Biden's home. I wouldn't want to talk about that.

I wouldn't want to talk about what we have been learning in the Committee on the Judiciary. I wouldn't want to be learning about what is going on or talking about what we have heard from the whistleblowers or from Devon Archer. I wouldn't want to talk about that at all. I would want to sweep that aside.

I wouldn't want to talk about the Department of Justice that targeted Scott Smith and put him on the domestic terrorism list.

I wouldn't want to talk about a Department of Justice that targeted Mark Houck and have used the FACE Act to go after pro-life Americans.

I wouldn't want to talk about anything that this administration is doing. I would want to delay.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, again, my colleagues don't want to focus on the

issues the American people care about, and they certainly don't want to talk about the issues that are, frankly, pretty embarrassing to the track record of my Democratic colleagues.

As I said, they don't want to talk about Hunter Biden. They don't want to talk about the Department of Justice and how it has been weaponized against the American people.

They don't want to talk about a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that has been decimated and the high cost of gasoline and electricity. They don't want to talk about inflation. They don't want to talk about housing prices.

They don't want to talk about a Department of Defense that is more focused on social engineering than carrying out the mission that it is given.

They don't want to talk about crime.

They don't want to talk about woke policies in which men are swimming against women in swimming meets.

They don't want to talk about the border. We are going to talk about the border, but I assure you, they do not want to talk about the border.

They talk about consequences.

Last Thursday, Texas authorities recovered the bodies of two migrants, including a 3-year-old boy who tried crossing the Rio Grande. Then 2 weeks ago, a 10-year-old migrant boy drowned while trying to cross the Rio Grande.

Last year, 853 migrants died crossing the southern border; 53 in a tractor-trailer in the city of San Antonio, which I represent.

Thousands of Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning. There are moms that I have to talk to, dads that I have to talk to in Texas who have to bury another child because we refuse utterly to secure the border of the United States.

Again, the President of the United States, the Democratic leadership of the Senate, and the Democrat minority in the House utterly refuse to do their job to shut down the open border of the United States to secure our people. They are perfectly content with then shutting down the government because they refuse to do their job.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, last summer, our Democratic colleagues sent a package, a minibus of six appropriations bills, and in one vote wiped their hands and said they were done. Then there was a massive omnibus spending bill that was sent over to us in December.

What I ask my colleagues is: What would you cut? What would you do to actually reduce the deficit and reduce the debt of the United States when we are $33 trillion in debt and we are going to have $2 trillion of deficit spending this year?

We are putting forward bills that would reduce spending. We are putting forward bills that would actually move the Department of Defense appropriations bills over to the Senate, and do so responsibly, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the State- Foreign Operations, and Agriculture, on top of MILCON-VA, which we already passed.

My colleague talks about wasting time. What have we been doing for the last 20 minutes besides waste time here on the floor of the House with a dilatory tactic, which my colleagues fully understand has no basis. They are objecting to a waiver that they have constantly used themselves.

The fact is they have no message so my colleagues are resorting to dilatory tactics.

Again, shut down the open border or risk shutting down the government of the United States.

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

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, the Rules Committee reported a rule for four appropriations measures and made in order 440 total amendments.

We bring to the floor H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act; 180 amendments were made in order.

This bill, combined with the amendments that were made in order, takes significant steps to invest in resources that will help deter China, will cut the bureaucracy, will support military families and servicemembers, and will restore the Department of Defense's focus to warfighting rather than social engineering.

We bring to the floor H.R. 4665, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024.

This bill would defund international bodies like the World Health Organization, eliminate woke offices at the State Department, defund John Kerry, and it stands up for Israel while funding our State Department and foreign operations.

H.R. 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, was also a part of the rule.

This bill makes significant strides to reduce spending to pre-COVID levels, prevents members of the Communist Party of China from buying United States farmland, defunds the FDA's rule allowing abortion drugs by mail, and makes strides in ending wokeness at the United States Department of Agriculture.

Madam Speaker, importantly, these three bills, combined with the next one that I am going to talk about, reflect our commitment to reduce spending and an agreement to reduce spending further than the FRA, which was passed earlier this year, to a target of $1.526 trillion of discretionary spending.

That is our goal. That is our objective. It is something the American people are clamoring for from their leaders in Washington--to actually address the debt crisis fueling inflation and undermining the sovereignty of our Nation.

This is why we are here. This is the job we are supposed to do. I have offered to my colleagues that I wish this were July. We passed MILCON-VA in July. The Senate has passed nothing.

Last year, under Democrat control, six bills were packaged together in the summer and passed, and then a massive omnibus bill was passed in December.

I had an exchange with one of my Democratic colleagues a minute ago about this not being regular order, but this actually is regular order.

It is late in the process, I acknowledge. We are trying to move four bills that would total, when combined with MILCON-VA, upwards of almost three-quarters of the discretionary funding for our government.

Hopefully, we can reach some resolution as to how to move forward funding the government appropriately. We obviously have disagreements on what funding the government appropriately means, which stands here at the center of the debate, stands here at the center of the impasse, which brings me to H.R. 4367, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

It is a good bill, has strong provisions, strong language in it to try to encourage the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Mayorkas to do their jobs.

In our view, it is not sufficient because the Secretary, backed by the President of the United States, has utterly refused to do his job.

This should concern all of us. Every Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, Texas or New York, Florida or California, ought to be concerned with what is happening to our country, what is happening in Eagle Pass, Texas.

Madam Speaker, 11,000 human beings, 11,000 the night before last, 304,000 apprehensions in August--this is incomprehensible. The human toll is staggering; the deaths from fentanyl poisoning, the things that we have talked about ad nauseam on this floor.

As I was alluding to earlier, it is not compassionate to have open borders as currently exist under this administration and under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas.

Last Thursday, Texas authorities recovered the bodies of two migrants, including a 3-year-old boy, trying to cross the Rio Grande.

Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, a 10-year-old migrant drowned while trying to cross the Rio Grande, and 853 migrants died last year.

This is every day in Texas. I get a phone call or a text from a rancher every day in Texas. They find a body on their ranch. How is that remotely acceptable?

That is at the center of this debate. There are countless issues we disagree on, countless issues we need to address, and the appropriations process can, in fact, through the power of the purse, address many of those issues. These bills do that.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, these bills are dead on arrival. Well, that is how this process works. We put forward bills, and if there is disagreement, if the Senate disagrees, then we conference. I hope we can get to that stage.

I, again, will posit I wish this were July or August or 3 weeks ago, but we sit here with four bills that will fund almost 75 percent of the government when added to MILCON-VA.

Let's do our job. Let's work to move the DHS bill. Let's work together to figure out how to deal with the border.

To be very clear, we must address the border. That is a nonnegotiable truth;

that we must address the border. We can sit around a table and debate how, but we must address it.

There has been too much death, too much destruction, too much damage to States and to human beings across this country, and the Federal Government has an obligation to do its job, and that is what we are endeavoring to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, with all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the bill we put forward does not cut funding. It increases spending over last year.

We can debate the merits of that and debate how much we need to restrain spending, but it is simply not true. Let's at least speak about the facts before us and the legislation in front of us.

I heard my colleague talking about getting our act together. I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts: How about the Senate and the President get their act together? How about they actually do their jobs and secure the border of United States?

The gentleman from Massachusetts just blithely swept it aside. Oh, it is an important issue. Tell that to the people in Texas. In August, 304,000 encounters, the fifth month in fiscal year 2023 over 200,000, 2.2 million in fiscal year 2023 encounters.

Since the President took office, there have been nearly 6 million illegal migrants encountered along the southwest border, more than the populations of Houston and Dallas combined.

We have had 2 million released in the United States, thousands of migrants traveling through the Darien Gap, trains chock-full of people, children getting sold into the sex trafficking trade on a daily basis.

We know it because it is in Federal orders from judges. These are not made-up facts. They are right before us, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't care, and the Senate leadership, the Democrats leading the Senate and the President don't care, and the Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't care.

My answer to the question about why we are saying that H.R. 2 must be signed into law before the funding bill gets passed is because the law must change, and the Secretary must be forced to do his job because he is refusing to do it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Madam Speaker, the only people being held hostage are the American people by Democrat leadership in the Senate and in the White House; holding them hostage to a wide open border, endangering them every single day, including the 110,000 some-odd migrants that have been sent to and gone to New York City, and that are endangering our people on the streets.

The American people are, in fact, being held hostage because this Democratic leadership refuses to do their job to secure the border.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up, my constituents are fed up, the people we represent are fed up, and they are fed up with the very deal that the gentleman from Massachusetts just described that came out of the Senate.

Madam Speaker, that is 45 days of continued spending at the existing levels and continuing the status quo with an additional $6 billion for Ukraine, and nothing to deal with the border. Nothing. Zero changes at the border.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the previous speakers from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about victims, and I would note the extent to which we have countless victims, as we have talked about before, from the scourge of fentanyl poisonings across this country.

Two weeks ago, 1-year-old Nicholas Feliz Dominici died from fentanyl exposure from a kilo of fentanyl at an at-home daycare in the Bronx, New York, that, reportedly, a new arrival from the Dominican Republic was renting out.

More than 25,000 pounds of fentanyl have been seized in FY23. I spent time in August sitting on panels with moms and dads who lost their children to fentanyl poisonings--six children in the school district in which I reside. It is commonplace in Texas. It is becoming, unfortunately, more commonplace around the country.

How about the woman who was stabbed 28 times by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record in Pennsylvania, or the 10-year-old boy who was on a schoolbus on the first day of school killed by an illegal immigrant who ran into the bus? How about the father in Florida who opened his home to a supposedly unaccompanied alien child, who was 19 years old, and he stabbed and killed the father of this family who opened his home?

This is happening every day to the American people, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not care. They watch Secretary Mayorkas completely ignore his duty to secure the border of the United States, leaving us entirely exposed to cartels and to the flood of fentanyl pouring into our communities. Border Patrol is overwhelmed, trying to manage numbers at the border, which is completely avoidable if the Secretary and the President would actually follow the law.

Republicans have responded with a bill that would force the Secretary to follow the law and that would improve the laws of the United States to secure the border of the United States, as we are constitutionally required to do. We have made that a condition precedent for giving more money to the Secretary of Homeland Security as he ignores his job and endangers the American people. We will continue to do that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no idea what the gentleman from Massachusetts was just talking about. We have four bills before us here in the House of Representatives, four bills that, when combined with the MILCON-VA bill that we passed in July, would fund upward of 75 percent of our discretionary spending of government. That is what is on the floor of the House.

The fact is, the four bills we have before us represent this body doing its job. The gentleman says the Senate is going to be the adults who save us. This is a Senate that has passed not one appropriations bill. This is a Senate that today dropped on the floor of

the Senate a bill that no one had seen 45 minutes prior to the vote, a bill which would continue to spend at the levels adopted last December that are yielding $2 trillion a year in deficit spending.

If that represents the adults, I think I want to hang out with the kids because that is not the job that we are supposed to do--$2 trillion a year of deficit spending when we are $33 trillion in debt, continuing to fund an administration completely at war with the well- being of the American people and a Department of Justice weaponized against the people like Mark Houck, a father who wakes up with a raid at his home for defending his son, for exercising his free speech rights, completely not pursued by local authorities, taken to Federal court, and summarily dismissed within an hour by a jury. That is your FBI and Department of Justice at work.

This is the same Department of Justice that wants to label Scott Smith a domestic terrorist. That is your Department of Justice at work.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say the Senate being adults and writing another check to that Department of Justice is a good use of your money.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say it is a good idea to continue to rack up $2 trillion in deficit spending, to borrow more money, to increase inflation, to devalue the dollar, to spend money we don't have to fund a Department of Homeland Security that refuses to secure the homeland.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do this while thousands of Americans die from fentanyl poisonings, while cartels are empowered, while China is empowered, while China is selling the printing presses and the fentanyl pills to the cartels, while thousands pour into Eagle Pass, while 11,000 people just the day before yesterday poured across into Eagle Pass, while people are in railroad cars, while children are dying, while children get sold into the sex trafficking trade, where migrants are being held for ransom so their little girl doesn't get raped in a stash house in Fort Worth, Texas. All of that, I suppose, is from the adults we have in the Senate. They want to continue to fund a lawless administration, exposing our people to danger and exposing migrants to danger, all in the false name of compassion.

Well, if that is what adults look like, count me out. I am going to stand up for the American people who sent me here to stand up for them.

Madam Speaker, we are going to pass these four bills. We are going to work hard to do the work for the American people while the Senate can preen and posture with yet another swamp game by putting forward another continuing resolution of the status quo rather than trying to change this place, rather than trying to stand up for the people who sent us here to do something different: to reduce spending, to secure the border, to fund our troops at a higher level than we have ever funded them; a $28 billion increase for the Department of Defense while we undo the social engineering experiment and refocus the military on its mission to defend the United States.

I am proud of these four bills. I am proud to stand up here and advance them forward but let me be very clear: We are going to secure the border of the United States.

It will be up to Democrats to make a choice. Will they shut down this open border or will they shut down the government of the United States.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 723.

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act.

The first section of House Resolution 723 states that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be considered.

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

Madam Speaker, decades ago, Republicans came up with a rule that basically says that we cannot impose mandates on States and local governments that will cost them significant amounts of money. That rule is routinely waived, including in this rule.

Do you know what will cost States and local governments significant amounts of money? A government shutdown.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that the 5-week partial government shutdown in 2018-2019 reduced economic output by $11 billion in the following two quarters, including $3 billion that the U.S. economy never regained. Moody's Analytics estimated that the 2013 full government shutdown reduced GDP growth by $20 billion. At the same time of the 2013 shutdown, consumer confidence fell, threatening the economic recovery following the Great Recession.

A shutdown this fall would jeopardize the improvements of consumer confidence as inflation has returned to more normal levels. A bipartisan congressional report found that the last three government shutdowns led to the equivalent of 56,940 years in lost productivity from Federal workers being furloughed. These lost work hours deprive the American people of important public services, delayed furloughed Federal employees from receiving backpay, and cost the government at least $338 million in additional processing costs and late fees.

While Federal employees are guaranteed backpay during shutdowns, a prolonged shutdown could mean multiple missed paychecks and strained household budgets for these workers.

In 2013 and again in 2018, roughly 850,000 out of 2.1 million nonpostal Federal employees were furloughed. Additionally, at the beginning of the 2018-2019 partial shutdown, about 380,000 Federal employees were furloughed and another 420,000 reported to work but went unpaid.

Over 80 percent of Federal workers live and work outside of the D.C. area, meaning that local economies across the country would be harmed by Federal worker furloughs as families delay purchases or are forced to miss regular bill payments.

Let's consider more impacts of the Republican shutdown and how it will cost State and local governments. It would force servicemembers and law enforcement officers to work without pay. Under a Republican shutdown, all Active-Duty military personnel and many law enforcement officers would remain at work but receive no pay until appropriated funds are available.

It would endanger disaster response. A Republican shutdown would create an increased risk that FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is depleted and would complicate new emergency response efforts

if additional catastrophic disasters occur. Funding for long-term recovery projects would also remain halted, worsening ongoing delays as FEMA awaits new appropriations.

It would undermine research on cancer and other diseases. A Republican shutdown would stall critical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's disease because the National Institutes of Health would be forced to delay new clinical trials. New patients, many of whom are desperately waiting for a chance for a new treatment through a clinical trial, would be turned away.

It would eliminate Head Start slots for kids. Under a Republican shutdown, 10,000 children across the country would immediately lose access to Head Start as the Department of Health and Human Services wouldn't be able to award Head Start grants during a shutdown, with the impacts only growing worse over time.

It would risk significant delays for travelers. Air traffic controllers and TSA officers would have to work without pay, potentially leading to significant delays and longer wait times for travelers at airports across the country like there were during the previous shutdown.

It would undermine public health and environmental protections. Most EPA-led inspections at hazardous waste sites, as well as drinking water and chemical facilities, would stop. EPA would halt oversight and review of permits and plans to ensure safe water and clean air in communities. Additionally, efforts to address dangerous contaminants that are linked to severe health effects would be stopped. This would be a disaster.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman said the Democrats shut down the economy during the pandemic. I should remind him that Donald John Trump was the President of the United States and the Republicans controlled the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I should remind him that the Republicans set an amendment deadline on appropriations bills after the shutdown deadline, so don't tell me you are interested somehow in avoiding a shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, to speak more about that.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, I have never seen such incompetence ever in this Chamber.

They say that they are against dilatory tactics. Yet they have only passed one appropriations bill. Now they are going to try to rush 11 more in record time across the finish line. This should have happened in June and July.

By the way, all these bills are so extreme that they are dead on arrival. They are going nowhere.

Their Homeland Security appropriations bill, even if we pass it, they are going to hold it at the desk until the Senate passes their ridiculous border bill, H.R. 2, which they know is going nowhere. They are not even sending that over to the Senate.

They are wasting all this time for what, I don't know, but in the meantime, right now we should be considering a continuing resolution so this government doesn't shut down.

I never thought I would ever be on the floor saying anything nice about the Senate, but over there Democrats and Republicans are actually talking to each other. They actually came to an agreement on a continuing resolution, and hopefully they will act on it and they will send it over here so we can end this nonsense.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, forgive me, but what the hell is going on around here? We just heard the gentleman from Texas scream talking points that sound like they were written in Mar-a-Lago.

This is crazy. I can't believe I have to say this, but the Federal Government of the United States is shutting down on Saturday because a handful of MAGA Republicans didn't get everything they wanted. I have to tell you, that is a bad thing. It is a bad thing for our country.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are acting like a shutdown is no big deal. Stop it. Stop it. This is not a mock Congress. This isn't the Model U.N.

We are talking about real people's lives here. Shutdowns cost taxpayer money. Shutdowns hurt the economy. Shutdowns mean people don't get paid. Shutdowns are bad. Yet, Republicans are on the verge of shutting down the government.

We have a Democratic President. We have a Democratic Senate. All we need is this Republican House of Representatives to get their act together, but they can't.

Their bumbling, incompetent leadership can't even do the basic job of standing up to their extreme Members so we can keep the lights on.

It might have made sense for them to pass these appropriation bills and send them to the Senate to iron out our differences if it were still June or July. It is September.

They have spent months fighting with themselves, and now we are 4 days from our deadline. Have they ever looked at a calendar? Have they ever heard of the concept of scheduling? Have they ever heard of clock management?

You don't start a months-long process 4 days before the deadline, but here we are, considering the most extreme, partisan, unhinged MAGA messaging bills this majority could come up with.

My colleague from Texas talks about the border, the border, the border. It is an important issue, but these bills cut funding for the border. He cares so much about securing the border that he is willing to--wait for it--defund the border.

Madam Speaker, they are not even sending their Homeland Security appropriations bill to the Senate. What brilliant legislative mind came up with this bright idea?

Let me explain what this rule does. The House is refusing to send this bill to the Senate until the Republicans' extreme immigration bill is signed into law, which is never going to happen.

What will happen because of all their nonsense is that the people who actually work to secure the border will not get paid. This is nuts.

These bills are chock full of MAGA culture wars. Their agriculture bill takes money away from food assistance for pregnant mothers and newborns. I could spend all day talking about how awful these bills are.

The bottom line is we have 4 days, and I am asking my Republican colleagues: Do not shut this government down because you are all fighting with yourselves. Do your job and keep the government open. That shouldn't be too much to ask.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina says we keep on talking about government shutdown, government shutdown. The reason we do is because we listened to you.

On September 19 in the PBS Hour interview, you were asked: How likely is a shutdown right now?

Your response was: It is 100 percent.

We have heard that from other Members.

The gentleman keeps on talking about the border. We believe the border is a serious issue. The border is not open. Maybe people think it is open because you guys keep on saying it is open. You are signaling to people that it is open. It is not open, and we don't believe it should be open. We don't view this issue as a political talking point. We want to get results.

My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against a fiscal year 2023 government funding package that President Biden signed into law that provided Border Patrol with $7.153 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before.

The funding package provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at every point of entry, and $230 million for technology, like the autonomous surveillance towers. Does any of that sound like open borders?

Here is the kicker. House Republicans voted ``no.''

By the way, Mr. Norman, this bill does nothing about Mr. Mayorkas' salary, but it does cut salaries for people who are working at the border, Border Patrol agents.

The gentleman from Texas said that he wants the Senate to get their act together.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a press release from the chair of the Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, who just announced that Democrats and Republicans have come to a bipartisan agreement on a continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, they are talking to each other. You can't even get an agreement amongst Republicans--how pathetic.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, breaking news, news flash, the Senate just voted on cloture on the motion to proceed on the CR, 77-19. They are working in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to get this thing done so we don't shut the government down.

What are my Republican friends doing?

They are still fighting amongst themselves. We don't even have a draft of anything that they are proposing in terms of avoiding a shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania complaining about the mismanagement of this House of Representatives. It is reinforcing our message. He can complain all he wants, but he can't blame Speaker Pelosi, Joe Biden, or anybody but his own leadership. I hate to tell him, but his party is in charge.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a pattern here that I have seen develop over the years. When Republicans are in charge, the debt doesn't matter. When Democrats are in charge, all of a sudden, the debt is the central issue. It is funny, when Donald Trump, who I don't know how many indictments he has against him at this particular point, how many dozens of years in jail he faces if he is convicted, but when he was President, he added $8 trillion to the debt, and there was silence from the other side of the aisle. That was only in 4 years, by the way. It is a little bit ironic to hear some of this back and forth here.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Business as usual for my Republican friends is more tax cuts for corporations and millionaires and billionaires, slashing programs that help the most vulnerable in our country, and subsidies to Big Oil companies and more and more money to big defense contractors.

Let me just explain to some of my colleagues, especially the moderate Republicans, if there are any of them left:

The ag appropriations bill, before the manager's amendment, which, by the way, imposed even deeper cuts in some of these programs, slashes WIC by $800 million. It reduces the value for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by $1.2 billion, hurting both families and farmers.

It guts the Rural Energy for America Program by $500 million.

It guts rural electric investments in clean energy and energy efficiency from the Inflation Reduction Act by $1 billion.

It eliminates a lifeline that has already helped more than 20,000 distressed farmers who have received assistance from the Inflation Reduction Act.

It blocks FDA from acting on important tobacco issues, banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and limiting the nicotine in cigarettes.

It blocks the Biden executive orders on diversity, equality, inclusion, and accessibility.

It reverses the 2023 FDA decision to allow mifepristone to be dispensed in certified pharmacies with a prescription instead of only hospitals, clinics, and medical offices.

This bill, made worse by a manager's amendment, guts food programs, nutrition programs to our kids, to pregnant mothers and newborns.

What are they thinking? What sense does that make? How does anybody on that side of the aisle vote for a bill that does that? To my moderate friends, if they are still around, how do they do that? This is unacceptable. By the way, read the fine print in these appropriations bills, look at the programs they cut.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Madam Speaker, for the gentleman to say that people on our side of the aisle don't care about the fentanyl problem in this country, that we don't care that our constituents are dying, that people are dying in this country, that is offensive.

One of the reasons why people watching this debate despise Congress at this moment is because of the characterizations that are made by the gentleman.

I will tell you this: We believe we should fund our Border Patrol agents. We believe we should do more to confront these issues. We don't use these matters as a political football or political talking point. To come down here and say that somehow we don't care, that is offensive.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from CBS News titled: ``Government shutdown could jeopardize U.S. credit rating, Moody's warns.''

Madam Speaker, months after Fitch Ratings downgraded the U.S. credit rating, a Moody's analyst wrote that a shutdown ``would underscore the weakness of U.S. institutional and governance strength relative to other AAA-rated sovereigns that we have highlighted in recent years.''

Extreme MAGA Republicans are embarrassing our country internationally and exacerbating economic hardship at home when they openly brag about how they would welcome a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, this is the theater of the absurd. The gentleman comes down here and talks about the border. Once again, his bill defunds border security. Does he propose to secure the border through volunteerism?

I am so sick of listening to the Republicans rant and rave about spending. Joe Biden has added $1.8 trillion to the national debt. That is a fact. Donald Trump, the last Republican President, added $8.2 trillion. Trump added as much in 4 years as his predecessor did in 8 years, and Republicans added $2 trillion to the debt with their tax cuts for the rich.

Now, the so-called pro-life party has the nerve to try to cut WIC, the women, infants, and children program, which helps provide food to new moms and very young children.

Now, let me explain this to the gentleman from Texas and to my Republican colleagues: Cutting funding for WIC means more malnourished babies. Malnourished babies end up needing expensive healthcare. Who pays the bill? It is Medicaid that pays. It is taxpayers who pay. In fact, according to USDA, every dollar spent on WIC means $3 in taxpayer savings.

Madam Speaker, what kind of twisted values would make someone think it is a good idea to cut taxes on billionaires but a bad idea to fund WIC, a program that saves money, a program that helps women, infants, and children?

All of these appropriations bills that are being brought to the floor at this last minute are so extreme that Republicans in the Senate won't even support them. These bills shouldn't go over to the Senate. They should go to a shredder.

Republicans want to gut programs that help seniors, gut programs that help students, gut programs that help working people. Instead of trying to do anything that helps anyone, they are obsessed with banning Pride flags from flying at our embassies. What is wrong with them?

This is absurd. What is happening here is not governing.

Just so everyone is clear: All of this should have been done months and months ago, and doing it now, 4 days before a shutdown and having no plan to avoid a shutdown, is incompetence, pure and simple.

I just saw a tweet from a reporter about conference calls that are going on amongst Republican Members, where Republicans are warning each other about getting their list of priorities straight, trying to figure out how you get to a deal, if you can get to a deal. They are saying we need some organization. You are just having those conference calls now.

Let me just say that it is clear that my Republican friends have no idea at all what they are doing. It is clear they have no plan to get us out of this mess. My Republican friends need to move out of the way and let serious people on both sides of the aisle do what we have to do to clean up the GOP's mess and keep government funded.

The Senate right now has come to a bipartisan compromise. That is a good thing. They are trying to avoid a shutdown that my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber don't seem to think is a big deal. They will know it is a big deal when they shut the government down and their constituents start calling and complaining about not getting paid, about the services that are being cut. They will hear loud and clear from their constituents--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Now is time for the adults in the room to figure this out. The Senate has given us a way forward. We should take it.

When my friends say that they need more time to figure all this out, what have they been doing? For months, what have they been doing?

We have had enough of this nonsense. We have had enough talk about shutdowns. We need to work together in a bipartisan way, work in the way that our constituents expect us to work to get things done, not to shut things down, not to tear things apart, not to blow things up.

At the end of the day, we have our policy differences. When I look at these appropriations bills, I can say honestly to my friends that we don't share the same values. I don't understand how you can gut food and nutrition programs. I don't even understand how you can cut border security. I don't get the thinking behind all of that, but that is your problem to work out.

In the meantime, let's come together and do the right thing. Let's keep this government open.

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