Promoting Physical Activity for Americans Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 688, providing for consideration of S. 1301 under a closed rule. The rule self-executes an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-16, temporarily extending the public debt limit.

The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to commit.

Madam Speaker, having just sat through a Rules Committee meeting, it is a pleasant surprise that the Republicans have now rediscovered the issue of the debt. Wow.

Where the hell were you for the past 4 years?

Where was your concern when you all passed the tax cut bill for the wealthy and big corporations that CBO projected would add $1.9 trillion to the deficit? That is trillion with a T. And that is even after taking into account any effects from economic growth.

Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, the question before us today is this: Will the United States of America pay its bills?

I wish that were hyperbole.

We always have. The United States has never defaulted. Never, ever defaulted, not once.

But the actions of my friends on the other side have made the world seriously wonder about the full faith and credit of this Nation.

Raising the debt ceiling has traditionally been something that both parties have agreed to, no matter who controlled Congress or who sat in the White House.

I have been in Congress more than 20 years now. I voted to raise the debt ceiling when I was in the majority, and I voted to raise the debt ceiling when I was in the minority. I voted to raise it under Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, and I cast those votes even when I vehemently disagreed with our spending decisions.

I opposed the Republican tax cut for the wealthy and large corporations that passed under the last administration. I still think it is awful, awful, awful policy; but I still, nevertheless, voted to raise the debt ceiling under the prior administration because regardless whether we win or lose on policy here, defaulting on our debt would lead to economic catastrophe on a global scale.

Unemployment would rise; the stock market would crater; interest rates would skyrocket; imports would become more expensive; and inflation would increase.

We are not talking about a scenario that only impacts wealthy investors or large corporations. Every single American would be hurt, everyone with a pension or a retirement account, everyone with a small business, everyone with a car or home loan, and everyone who walks into a store, whether they are buying groceries or the latest

smartphone. Our country would be thrown into a recession virtually overnight.

This is the type of disaster that Republicans are flirting with here, Madam Speaker. They are not refusing to raise the debt ceiling to try to prevent President Biden's agenda in the future. This isn't about the bipartisan transportation bill or reconciliation bill, which we have yet to consider, because raising the debt ceiling only pays for the prior debts that we have already racked up. We are talking about the spending Republicans voted for under President Trump.

They ballooned the deficit, and now they are trying to wash their hands of the consequences. It is like going to a restaurant, eating a meal, and refusing to pay the tab when the waiter brings the bill. Only here, they risk bringing down the entire global economy.

All because of what? They are upset that their party doesn't control Congress. Give me a break. We are talking about people's livelihoods here.

Earlier this week, Senate Republicans filibustered a continuing resolution that would have lifted the debt ceiling. Every day Republicans waste playing political games brings us one day closer to a default, one day closer to catastrophe.

I have heard the Senate minority leader and others suggest that reconciliation is some kind of panacea that will allow us to raise the debt ceiling easily and in a partisan way. Well, let me remind them that there are challenges with that, and it will take time, time that we do not have.

Just yesterday, the Treasury Secretary said that we are likely to hit the debt limit on October 18, just days from now.

We have had a lot of fights on this floor. Congress has been a little dysfunctional from time to time. But let me repeat, the United States of America has never defaulted in its more than 200-year history. Not once.

Republicans are playing with fire here. We need cooler heads to prevail. The underlying bill is that chance. It is an opportunity to raise the debt ceiling in a clean way, the kind of approach that would have passed overwhelmingly on suspension a few years ago.

We need to get this done, Madam Speaker. We don't have a moment to spare. Economists estimate that defaulting on our debts even for just a few hours could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

After all that we have done to bring our Nation through the COVID pandemic, that is a hit that we can't afford, Madam Speaker.

So, to my friends on the other side, I get it. You are not going to vote for this even though 97 percent of what is necessitating us to raise the debt ceiling was accumulated before President Biden even took office. Much of it was racked up under President Trump on your watch when you controlled the Congress.

Still, you are not going to vote to do the responsible thing here. That is crystal clear. But please get out of the way and tell all your friends in the Senate to get out of the way, too.

Let us pass this. Let us do the responsible thing.

We will do it with a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. We are good at cleaning up your mess.

Let's pass this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's step back from the brink. Let's prevent an avoidable economic meltdown. And let's do what America has always done: pay its bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this, and let me preface my remarks by saying I love the gentleman from Oklahoma. He is one of my favorite people here in the Congress. But I would remind him that when the Republicans passed their expensive tax cut for the rich, for the very wealthy, for big corporations, they didn't work with us. They just shoved it through. As I mentioned earlier, CBO tells us that the addition to our debt is close to $2 trillion, and that is after taking into account any potential benefits from growth.

I didn't like that policy. I still don't like that policy. I think the rich already get enough, and I think big corporations get too much in this country. But nonetheless, my view did not prevail.

Then, when we had to vote on the debt ceiling, the issue was: Do we pay our bills?

Now, this is a quote from the distinguished Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Let me read it. He says: ``When the United States makes promises, it keeps them, which is why the House voted today to avoid the threat of a debt default.''

That was several years ago, but he is right. When the United States makes promises, it keeps them. I didn't think that was a partisan issue. I didn't think that that was controversial.

But, look, here we are in Washington. Everything is a political fight. I mean, that is the way this place seems to work nowadays. And I get it. I am not even asking Republicans to vote with us to raise the debt ceiling anymore. I mean, it is just a hopeless cause. They have made a political decision. I get it. So, we are not asking for your support. What we are asking for is for you to get out of the way.

In the Senate, Democrats are prepared to carry the burden and raise the debt ceiling to make sure we pay bills, 97 percent of which were accumulated before Joe Biden was President. We are still paying for the Trump tax cuts.

We will do it. We will clean up the mess. What we are asking for is for you to get out of the way. Yet, we have Senators now threatening to use the filibuster to try to derail this, to put one hurdle after another after another.

They said they wanted Democrats to bear the burden. Democrats will do it. We always do. We are good at cleaning up messes that are left for us by our Republican friends. But get out of the way. Get out of the way, and let us do what the American people expect us to do, and that is to pay our bills.

Let me say one other thing. Everybody keeps telling me--and I heard this on the Rules Committee, too--the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the reconciliation, unless I missed something, we haven't passed either one of them yet. I mean, hopefully, we will, but those are things we are going to do in the future.

By the way, on the reconciliation bill, we are doing something that my Republican friends refused to do on their tax cut bill, and that is we are paying for it. So, we understood the issue of the debt, I guess, long before they did. At least we are more consistent than my Republican friends are.

In any event, I would just again say to my friends, we are not even asking you to vote for this anymore because that is a hopeless cause at this point. We are just asking you to get out of the way so we can get this done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about whether or not the United States of America will pay its bills and not default. I mean, that is what this is about. And we could talk about this, but with all due respect to the gentlewoman from Iowa, if we want to solve this pandemic, it begins at home.

She represents a State where just maybe a little more than 50 percent are vaccinated.

Go home and tell your people to get vaccinated.

It is the unvaccinated in this country that are filling up our emergency rooms, that are allowing this disease to be able to mutate.

So there's that old saying, ``physician, heal thyself,'' and to hear this from a party that embraces the conspiracy theories that are out there that are discouraging people from getting vaccinated. But I would encourage the gentlewoman--we can talk about this at another time--but in the meantime, Iowa needs to do better, as well as many other States in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Madam Speaker, we are on the edge of default, on the edge of catastrophe, and this is the response from my Republican friends.

Madam Speaker, yes, I have nothing but the highest respect for the gentlewoman from Iowa, but I just pointed out that a little over 50 percent of her State is vaccinated. That is not good. And the gentlewoman from Tennessee who just spoke, her State is even worse-- something like 45 percent are fully vaccinated. That is dangerous for not only the people of Iowa and Tennessee, but for the people of this country.

Doctor after doctor after doctor have told us that this is spreading because of the lack of attention to getting people vaccinated in this country. So we need to do better.

What we are talking about here today is whether or not we are going to default, whether we are going to court a catastrophe.

Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, he went through a list of people who voted against raising the debt ceiling in the past. I am willing to bet that many of those were attached to policy items where there was an objection.

I don't recall Democrats threatening to filibuster--threatening to filibuster--raising the debt ceiling. And yet, that is what Republicans are doing, cheered on by Republicans in the House.

So, look, we are happy to clean up your mess. We are happy to do the right thing. All Democrats will vote for it in the House. I am not asking anymore for you to join us because it is a waste of my breath.

But what we are asking you to do is get out of the way so that something really horrible doesn't happen in this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out for the record that in Texas only 51 percent of the population is fully vaccinated. That is better than Tennessee, but still that means half the population.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I merely point out that we have a lot of work to do in this country to be able to control the virus.

Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter to Speaker Pelosi from Janet Yellen, who is the Secretary of the Treasury.

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to follow up on my

previous letters regarding the debt limit and to provide

additional information regarding the Department of the

Treasury's ability to continue to finance the operations of

the U.S. government.

In my September 8 letter, I explained that Treasury's cash

and extraordinary measures would most likely be exhausted

sometime during the month of October. Based on our most

recent information, including tax payments associated with

the September 15 deadline for third quarter estimated tax

payments for businesses and individuals, I am now able to

further refine that projection.

We now estimate that Treasury is likely to exhaust its

extraordinary measures if Congress has not acted to raise or

suspend the debt limit by October 18. At that point, we

expect Treasury would be left with very limited resources

that would be depleted quickly. It is uncertain whether we

could continue to meet all the nation's commitments after

that date. While this is our best estimate, the federal

government's cash flows are subject to unavoidable

variability. For example, the government's daily gross cash

flow (excluding financing) over the past year averages nearly

$50 billion per day and has exceeded $300 billion. As a

result, it is important to remember that estimates regarding

how long our remaining extraordinary measures and cash may

last can unpredictably shift forward or backward. This

uncertainty underscores the critical importance of not

waiting to raise or suspend the debt limit. The full faith

and credit of the United States should not be put at risk.

Furthermore, we know from previous debt limit impasses that

waiting until the last minute can cause serious harm to

business and consumer confidence, raise borrowing costs for

taxpayers, and negatively impact the credit rating of the

United States for years to come. Failure to act promptly

could also result in substantial disruptions to financial

markets, as heightened uncertainty can exacerbate volatility

and erode investor confidence.

I am also writing to notify you, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

8348(1)(2), of my determination

that, by reason of the statutory debt limit, I will continue

to be unable to fully invest the portion of the Civil Service

Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) not immediately

required to pay beneficiaries, and that a ``debt issuance

suspension period,'' previously determined to end on

September 30, 2021, will continue through October 18, 2021.

As a result, the Treasury Department will continue to suspend

additional investments of amounts credited to, and will

redeem an additional portion of the investment held by, the

CSRDF, as authorized by law.

In addition, because the Postal Accountability and

Enhancement Act of 2006 provides that investments in the

Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) shall be

made in the same manner as investments for the CSRDF, the

Treasury Department will also continue to suspend additional

investments of amounts credited to, and will redeem an

additional portion of the investments held by, the PSRHBF. By

law, the CSRDF and PSRHBF will be made whole once the debt

limit is increased or suspended. Federal retirees and

employees will be unaffected by these actions.

Again, I respectfully urge Congress to protect the full

faith and credit of the United States by acting as soon as

possible.

Sincerely,

Janet L. Yellen.

Madam Speaker, let me quote from the letter. It says: ``We know from previous debt limit impasses that waiting until the last minute can cause serious harm to business and consumer confidence, raise borrowing costs for taxpayers, and negatively impact the credit rating of the United States for years to come. Failure to act promptly could also result in substantial disruptions to financial markets, as heightened uncertainly can exacerbate volatility and erode investor confidence.''

We are not asking you to do anything more other than to just step out of the way. We will do the serious business of making sure that we don't default on our financial obligations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am.

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

Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that Mitch McConnell led three efforts to increase the debt limit under President Trump. He has voted over 30 times to increase the debt limit by over $20 trillion during his career.

He worked with President Obama in 2015, saying then: I made it very clear that after the November election we are certainly not going to shut down the government or default on the national debt. We will figure some way to handle that. What is different now? Not a thing. Nothing.

He did the right thing then. He is simply unwilling to do the right thing today. Instead, he is making up new precedent out of whole cloth, the impacts of which would be devastating.

So this is not just about Senator McConnell, every Republican in the House and Senate should do the right thing and raise the debt ceiling.

It has never been the responsibility of just one party to ensure that America pays its bills. And to pretend otherwise, is to blindly be following a policy that will send our economy off a cliff.

Madam Speaker, I just have to say to my Republican friends, stop doubling down on the insanity. At some point we all have to act like grownups around here and get the people's business done. Too many of my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to get on one knee and genuflect in front of the altar of Donald Trump and all the stuff that goes with that. Well, you know what, it is time that we all act like serious legislators.

We have a discussion on immigration and COVID testing, we ought to have that discussion in a different context, not on the debt ceiling bill.

I will again say to my colleagues, I don't even know how many Members of the Republican Conference are vaccinated. We have people who come here and fight against efforts to get everybody vaccinated, who fight against communities that want to encourage people to wear masks in order to protect the citizens of that community.

We are here to legislate. This bill will fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities Congress has; that is, to ensure that America pays its bills. We always have, Madam Speaker.

And, you know, to try to make this debate into a debate about reconciliation--by the way, which we want to pay for as much of it as possible so it won't add to the deficit and the debt. That is a future debate.

This is about paying all the bills that were accumulated; 97 percent of which was accumulated, not under Joe Biden, but under his predecessor. Stuff that my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for. And to turn this into a political football about what might happen down the road is really ridiculous. It is dangerous. It is reckless.

My friends have said that they want Democrats to basically carry these bills. Happy to do it. On our side nobody wants to default. On our side we all understand the consequences. Mark Zandi, an economist for Moody's, said that it would be such a catastrophe if we defaulted on our debt. He said it would impact generations and generations and generations into the future.

Every economist, no matter what their political affiliation may be, has said the same thing. So we have to do this.

And, again, to try to make this about something else is just trying to avoid dealing with reality. I would say to my colleagues, all we are asking for now--we are no longer asking for your vote--you know, that is a waste of time at this particular point. I have seen all the press releases. I have seen the talking points come out of the RCCC and the RNC. It is maddening to see how this issue can be so distorted. We are not asking for that anymore. You already decided to make this a political issue.

We are just asking you to get the hell out of the way and to allow us to keep this government running on track and not in default. That should not be a controversial issue. It should not be an issue that people walk away from. When you accumulate bills, you got to pay for them.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule so we can prevent a completely avoidable economic meltdown.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today's debt ceiling issue is a political and economic crisis of the Democrats' own making. They have known for 2 years this day was coming. They never even bothered to draft a budget for the government, much less pass it, and never lifted a finger to start the bipartisan discussions on how to raise the debt ceiling while addressing America's exploding national debt.

They have insisted on one-party rule all year, from an unnecessary, wasteful $2 trillion COVID stimulus that didn't stimulate the economy or defeat the virus to a national takeover of State and local elections, bailouts of failing State and local governments, ignoring the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border, and the disastrous surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

House Democrats have made it clear: We are running the place. Just sit down and shut up.

The bottom line on the debt ceiling today: Democrats alone have set fire to America's house and are now demanding Republicans put it out for them.

I urged Treasury Secretary Yellen, who I respect and who has bipartisan credibility, to do what the congressional Democrats have not: engage with Republicans on a reasonable framework of financial stability for our Nation.

There is precedent. Secretary Mnuchin certainly set that, reaching out repeatedly to Democrat leadership on these issues.

Although it should be noted, given the strident blame game now by Speaker Pelosi on the debt ceiling, I remember February 2018 when she, Leader Hoyer, Whip Clyburn, and 116 other House Democrats voted to default on America's debt, shut down the government, and refuse disaster relief to devastated communities across America.

One of the Democrat leaders even said: ``Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. The responsibility to govern rests squarely on their shoulders.''

Well, right now, the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. The responsibility to govern rests squarely on their shoulders.

I agree that Congress should not play political games with the debt ceiling or

ignore the danger of making permanent the temporary COVID relief with spending that will bankrupt our Nation in the future.

Democrats control everything--the House, the Senate, and the Presidency--and they can easily pass the debt ceiling by including it in their $3\1/2\ trillion tax hikes and welfare state expansion, which requires no Republican votes.

But rather than work together, what did Democrats do? As I noted, they rammed through a partisan, nearly $2 trillion so-called stimulus bill. This was unaccountable, partisan Washington spending that only made matters worse, especially rising inflation for working families.

For example, in that bill, Democrats undid a bipartisan agreement to protect taxpayers against the greatest theft of American tax dollars in our lifetime, which by now has lost up to $400 billion to fraud.

They even opened the door to greater fraud by replacing the Republican child tax credit that rewarded work with the cash-for-kids welfare check program with few safeguards.

Stopping fraud and taking care of tax dollars should be a bipartisan goal that would stretch the spending in the Federal Government. Instead, Democrats are demanding this tax and spending binge that will kill 3 million U.S. jobs, drive prices even higher, and impose the largest expansion to the welfare state in our lifetime.

I urge my Democrat colleagues: End the brinkmanship. We can achieve a bipartisan framework. Just look at the Republicans' repeated efforts.

In 2016, the House passed a Ways and Means bill called the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, creating a system that would have allowed Congress to make informed decisions about the debt ceiling and consider changes before it became a crisis. Yet, the Obama administration opposed the bill.

Today, Democrats are hardly worried about new burdens as they put the IRS in charge of workers' paid family and medical leave, or hire 80,000 new IRS agents, or impose IRS bank surveillance on the personal and business accounts of Main Street and working families.

And Democrats won't take up a similar bill, the Debt Solution and Accountability Act, offered by Ways and Means Republican Representative Lloyd Smucker from Pennsylvania.

Democrats' alternatives these days to a bipartisan framework range from ridiculous to irresponsible.

One Democrat Congressman has proposed U.S. Treasury mint a trillion- dollar coin--a trillion-dollar coin. Why not a quadrillion-dollar coin?

This farfetched idea sounds about as brilliant as many Democrats' own calls to end the debt limit entirely, as the Speaker has sought.

I think Democrats' best answer to Washington's out-of-control spending is to spend more and to tear out the brakes.

Let's be honest. This is an economic and political crisis of the Democrats' own making. There isn't enough money in America to cover what Democrats want to spend, and Americans know it.

That is why President Biden has gone out of his way to sell his $3.5 trillion bill as not adding to the debt, saying the ``Build Back Better agenda costs zero dollars,'' a claim that ranks right up with: ``If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.''

Unfortunately for him and for the taxpayers that will have to foot the bill, The Washington Post fact-checker found this claim misleading.

They said that it ``would take dubious gimmicks that will help disguise the true cost of President Biden's agenda.''

Again, considering Democrats have not had a single conversation about spending, stimulus, or the debt with us to date, I think they, by their behavior, have taken responsibility to pass this by themselves.

It is irresponsible to keep raising the debt limit, keep on spending without any framework, or any discussion about this explosion of America's debt.

We need to grow the economy, constrain our spending, work together, both parties together, to get our financial house back in order for our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record this fact-check from The Washington Post about this claim we just heard, that 83 percent of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went to the top 1 percent. They gave that false statement ``3 Pinocchios,'' calling it a ``zombie claim'' and ``galling.'' PolitiFact agreed, calling it ``misleading.''

[From the Washington Post]

The Pinocchio Six: Myths, Lies & Debunked Claims About Taxes

1. False: Biden: ``All of [GOP Tax Cuts] went to folks at

the top and corporations that pay no taxes.''

The Washington Post fact check gave this ``4 Pinocchios,''

saying this is ``simply wrong'' and ``clearly false.''

Three of every four dollars in the 2017 tax cuts went to

individuals, cutting taxes for the lowest-income Americans by

10% while cutting taxes for the top 1% by less than one-half

of 1%.

In the 2017 GOP tax reform, corporations effectively paid

for 85% of their tax cuts thanks to eliminating special tax

provisions and broadening the U.S. tax base.

2. Myth: ``The wealthy don't pay their `fair share.' ''

America has long had one of the most progressive tax codes

among developed nations, with higher-income people paying

higher tax rates, say the Organization for Economic

Cooperation & Development (OECD).

The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, and the top 10%

pays 70% of all income taxes, according to the Tax

Foundation.

After the GOP Tax Cuts, the rich pay a larger, not smaller,

share of income taxes.

3. False: ``83% of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts

went to top 1%.''

The Washington Post gave this false statement ``3

Pinocchios,'' calling it a ``zombie claim'' and ``galling.''

Politifact agreed, calling it ``misleading.''

4. False: ``Corporate tax receipts declined by 40% after

GOP Tax Cuts.''

Like government revenue that reached record levels in the

two years after GOP tax reform, corporate tax receipts are

higher and growing after TCJA, despite Democrats' claims.

Corporate tax revenues this year are $285 billion, 22%

higher than the Obama-Biden Admin's last year.

The Congressional Budget Office projects corporate tax

revenues under TCJA will increase to $379 billion in 2023--a

record high.

Biden's own budget scorers project U.S. corporate tax

revenues under TCJA will reach 1.63% of GDP by 2025, higher

than the 1.55% average in the decade before the GOP tax cuts.

5 Myth: ``55 profitable U.S. corporations paid no taxes

last year.''

This is an unverifiable claim by a far-left group (ITEP)

using flawed methodology. It is not based on actual tax

data--taxpayer data is private and most 2020 tax corporate

returns have yet to be filed.

This group confuses the difference between taxable income

and financial statement reports.

Similar reports that U.S. multinational corporations only

pay very low tax rates on their earnings overseas are flawed

either by double-counting, faulty methodology, or cherry-

picked data.

6. Myth: ``The Death Tax only impacts two of every 1,000

taxpayers who die.''

Relatively few estates pay the Death Tax, but many more

file estate tax returns, and millions of farms and other

family businesses are forced to waste precious time and money

to avoid a mistake that will result in a confiscatory tax

bill from the IRS.

The Death Tax crushes investment in workers & expanded

operations, harms growth & opportunity.

The Death Tax ranks as a devastatingly inefficient tax

since it raises a very small amount of revenue while placing

a very large burden on farms and other family businesses. In

fact, the Cato Institute says the Death Tax ``is anti-saving

and anti-investment,'' encourages ``wealthy folks to consume

their wealth before death,'' and does nothing for U.S. long-

term growth.

A growing number of women- and minority-owned businesses

are finding themselves subject to the Death Tax as they try

to build wealth for the first time and pass it on to the next

generation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the ranking Republican of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from west Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), who is the ranking member of the tax policy subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I can't help but remember that, in February 2018, my colleague from Houston, Texas, voted to default on America's debt, to shut down the government, and to withhold disaster funding for Hurricane Harvey in our region.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

What a bunch of nonsense that we just heard. I respect the majority leader. I love his talk about courage and principle and language and all of that.

But what he didn't tell you was that in February of 2018, Speaker Pelosi, he, Whip Clyburn, 119 House Democrats, voted to shut down this government, to default on America's debt, and deny hurricane assistance to communities not just in Texas, but across the country. He played politics with America's debt. So did many Democrats that day.

While they lecture us about irresponsibility, here is what we do know. This is a dangerous, irresponsible charade. Democrats are desperate to blame the GOP for this when, in fact, they created this economic crisis.

For 2 years, our Democrat colleagues have known this day was coming and never even passed a budget. They didn't even try to pass a budget to deal with this. They never sat down with Republicans. They have rammed everything through this House this year.

Now, even though they have all of the votes they need, they are just playing political games, willing to shut down this government, willing to deny disaster aid, willing to harm our economy and working families so they don't have to raise this debt ceiling.

The truth is, they don't want to. They can. They don't want to. They are manufacturing this crisis. They have all the votes they need. They are willing to bring this economy to the brink. They have got all the votes they need. All they have to do is include it in reconciliation. They just don't want to. They just don't want to.

We could fact-check so much of what we heard today. We could spend the next 2 hours on this, and we could talk about all of the tax breaks for the billionaires and the wealthy in the new spending bill that is being brought to the floor. Trust me, this isn't just about past debts. This is about a green light to spend America deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.

To quote our Democrat leaders in 2018: ``Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. The responsibility to govern rests squarely on their shoulders.''

Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. This responsibility rests on their shoulders.

I will tell you, Madam Speaker, at the end of this debate, I intend to offer a motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means and include a provision that would prohibit the IRS from implementing a bank surveillance scheme.

The reason I am doing this is because Democrats are leading a campaign to impose bank surveillance on your personal bank account and your business bank account. They are targeting families and farmers and America's small businesses.

They want to give the IRS unfettered access to individual and business bank accounts. It is an outrageous intrusion into the private lives of all Americans. And they want to do that because they think they can raise money to lift the SALT cap, to give tax breaks to millionaires, to create tax havens for billionaires against the very tax hikes that they are proposing. Penthouse occupants are cheering. The building janitor gets nothing.

This is why they don't want to take responsibility for lifting the debt ceiling, because they have huge plans to really harm middle-class Americans while giving huge tax breaks to their friends.

When Democrats want to sit down with Republicans and have a serious conversation about how we raise the debt ceiling, how we address the financial stability of this country, let me tell you, I am in, a lot of us are in. I am hopeful someday we can get to that because that is what our country deserves. I will oppose this debt ceiling.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

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

I ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I listened closely to the speech by the Republican Senate leader, and I have heard statements made over the weekend on television. I think this is a moment where we might consider for just a minute or two a lesson on Senate 101 so there is an understanding of where we are and why we are at this place.

There are 100 Members of the Senate. Currently, there are 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Under the ordinary course of business, which has become extraordinary in this Chamber, a majority rules, so 51 votes will pass an amendment or a bill in most cases.

However, there is a creature in the Senate known as a filibuster, and the filibuster requires that 60 votes be found in order to prevail on a motion or a measure.

The filibuster raises the requirement from a simple majority to 60 votes. The Senator from Kentucky knows that as well as I do, he has been here longer than I have, that filibuster makes all the difference in the world. So to argue ``The Democrats have the majority; why don't they just take this majority and do their business?'' is to ignore the obvious.

What the Republicans have decided to do is, for the first time perhaps ever--I don't want to say that without checking the record for sure--but certainly in modern history, to require that when we pass the debt ceiling, we need to have 60 votes on the floor of the Senate. Well, it is no great revelation that with 50 Democrats, we would need 10 Republicans, and the Senate Republican leader has made it clear: He ain't giving us a vote, not one. So we have come to a standstill.

We are 2 weeks away from a default. For the first time in the history of the United States that we would default on our debt, it is as if America had a big home and a big mortgage and decided one month not to pay on the mortgage. Well, let's hope the day would come when the payment would be made, but in the meantime, there is a serious question then raised about the credit reputation of the United States, and that is exactly the fire that the Republicans are playing with by imposing a filibuster on this simple measure. They know that they can stop us as long as 60 votes are needed and they give none.

One of our colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, made an interesting observation in our caucus lunch last week. I hope he will forgive me if I try to paraphrase it. He said: Many people argue that we need a filibuster because it really encourages bipartisanship. We have to come together. We have to look for compromise.

Well, how do you compromise when the debt ceiling question is whether you do it or don't do it? And that is what is at stake here. Are we going to acknowledge the debt of the United States to its creditors far and wide and continue the business of this economy and this government? Republicans say: No, we would rather play fire with it. But they leave out that one element that is so critical: It is their decision, their filibuster that stops this.

I believe that Senator Schumer and the Democrats will offer them this opportunity again this week. Senator Schumer said as much. But it really troubles me that we are at a point in our history, recovering from this pandemic, businesses getting back on their feet, employees need to go back to work--and the Republicans have taken this strategy of defaulting on the national debt.

As far as the characterization of what reconciliation will do, Senator McConnell continues to come to the floor repeatedly and say: ``It will hurt families.'' Well, one of the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which I hope survives our compromise negotiation, will help families find affordable, quality daycare.

When you look at the fact that the vast majority of those who are not returning to work are women, you understand the circumstances. Many of them question whether or not school is going to be in person or by Zoom. They question whether or not they can find affordable daycare in any direction, and they question whether they can afford it once they find it.

If we took that worry off the family plate and said ``We are going to make sure that you have accessible, affordable childcare for your children,'' think of the relief it would give and the fact that many would return to the workplace.

According to the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, that hurts families. Hurts them? It helps them in ways that many of us don't even understand. Can you imagine frantically leaving a child at home in the care of someone you don't quite trust because you have no alternative but to go to work and try to earn a paycheck to feed that child and pay the rent? I wouldn't want to be in that desperate situation. I wouldn't want anyone in family to face it. To say that hurts families, to do that, is certainly wrong. It would help them if reconciliation includes that measure.

We also have a pre-K program to give kids who struggle a helping hand and a fresh start. We know the Head Start Program--it was created I guess almost 60-plus years ago--has had positive results in preparing people to go to college. Yes, Head Start Programs when they are young children--3, 4, and 5 years old--can make difference in their lives, how they learn, and what they do. So we want to make that the official policy of this country, that we have 2 years of pre-K education available to families. I think they will thank us for it, and in the future, generations that are helped with this will thank us as well.

The notion of extending the school year from K-12 through K-14, to put 2 years of community college without cost for families, is an extraordinary commitment.

There was a time in the turn of the 19th to the 20th century when America decided to make a big, bold experiment. It was called high schools. Up until that point, most families were lucky to get kids through eighth grade. The rich families, the ones well-positioned, would take them to high school. Well, we decided to make high school a universal, national experience in America. So you wouldn't quit at the 8th grade; you would finish in the 12th grade. Did it result in anything good for us? Take a look at the 20th century. With an educated, motivated workforce, America led the world. It is

no accident that extending education brought us to that moment.

Now, Joe Biden and many of us agree the 21st century is a brandnew set of challenges and putting 2 more years that you don't have to worry about going deep in debt affording on to a person's education gives them a better chance. Some will go to college. Some will develop skills that they need to get into the workforce and succeed. Some will have an experience that will change their lives. That is what this additional 2 years will be.

Senator McConnell thinks an additional 2 years of free higher education hurts American families. What is he thinking? I don't know what it is like in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but just north of it, in Illinois, we appreciate education and how it liberates, motivates, and educates young people to be part of the future.

So I would say to Senator McConnell: Understand Senate 101. Your filibuster is stopping the extension of the debt ceiling, and stopping the extension is going to jeopardize our credit rating, raise interest rates, and cost 6 million American jobs, according to the best economists. Why would we do that to America at this moment in history? We should be doing just the opposite, helping everybody we can.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to return to my statement that I was making earlier when I voluntarily surrendered the floor.

Madam President, I noted that the shadow docket in the Supreme Court was a subject of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. It is one of those esoteric subjects you wonder if anybody will even notice. We thought it was important enough to talk about it in light of the Texas abortion statute.

We noted the fact that in the last 4 years, there were 36 times when the Trump administration asked for the shadow docket to be used. The Court granted 28 of those Trump Justice Department administration requests. In the previous years, under George W. Bush and Barack Obama: 16 years; 8 requests; 4 were granted--4 versus 28 out of 36.

You can tell that something is happening in the Court. The day after our hearing, someone happened to notice. That person was Justice Samuel Alito. He made headlines for a speech he gave at Notre Dame Law School criticizing lawmakers--I suppose that is myself and the Presiding Officer--journalists, and scholars who raised concern about the Court's use of the shadow docket.

There doesn't appear to be a publicly available transcript or video of the full speech given by Justice Alito, so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record an article from The Hill newspaper entitled ``Alito bristles over criticism of Supreme Court's `shadow docket'.''

In his speech, Justice Alito reportedly zeroed in on our Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week and criticized one of the experts who testified, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. He also reportedly criticized an article by a respected journalist who writes about the Court frequently for a major magazine.

Justice Alito derided the phrase ``shadow docket'' as a ``catchy and sinister term'' meant to convey something ``sneaky and dangerous.'' In fact, the phrase ``shadow docket'' was coined by a University of Chicago law professor, William Baude, who, incidentally, clerked for Chief Justice Roberts and has spoken more than 30 times in Federalist Society events.

Justice Alito dismissed concerns about the shadow docket. He said:

The media and political talk about the shadow docket is not

serious criticism.

What he failed to mention, however, is that some of the strongest warnings about the Court's changing use of the shadow docket have come not from politicians like ourselves or journalists but from Justice Alito's colleagues on the Court.

Our hearing in the Judiciary Committee highlighted how Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and even Chief Justice Roberts sounded the alarm about the Supreme Court's shadow docket ruling on the Texas abortion ban.

Justice Sotomayor said of the Court's shadow docket decision on the Texas law:

The Court's order is stunning. Presented with an

application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law

engineered to prohibit women from exercising their

constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority

of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.

That is from Justice Sotomayor.

How about Justice Kagan? Justice Kagan expressed alarm that the Court's shadow docket decisionmaking ``every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.

The Justices made it clear that the Court's shadow docket handling of S.B. 8 in Texas raises urgent concerns that American people should be aware of. That is why we had the hearing. Chief Justice Roberts noted that Texas has now created ``a model for action,'' in his words, showing how States can undermine constitutional rights by using a bounty hunter enforcement scheme that avoids judicial scrutiny, thanks to the shadow docket. Lawmakers in a number of States are eyeing this procedure to try to copycat Texas's enforcement model. That ought to trouble anyone who cares about our Constitution.

With its order on the Texas abortion ban, the Court's majority has also shown its willingness to use the shadow docket to allow ``flagrantly unconstitutional'' laws, in the words of Justice Sotomayor, to take effect, at least when the laws align with the majority's ideological beliefs. As a result,

millions of Texans have had their constitutional rights stripped away, and the rights of all Americans are less secure. That is a major change that demands serious discussion.

Justice Alito may bristle at perceived criticism of the Court's practices, but that doesn't mean the Court should be immune from scrutiny from the American people, a free press, even legislative branch of government.

Historically, Congress has played an important and essential role in debates over the proper functioning of the courts.

First and foremost is the Senate's advise and consent role that results in the appointment of men and women to the Supreme Court. In addition, many aspects of the Supreme Court's operation, including the starting date of the Court's fall term, are established by an act of Congress. In fact, much of the Court's jurisdiction is set by Congress.

Congress is asked regularly by the Judicial Conference to pass new legislation governing the operations of the judiciary, and Justices have routinely come before Congress to discuss the requests and a wide range of other matters. In March 2019, for example, Justice Kagan testified before the House Appropriations Committee about such topics as whether the judicial code of conduct should apply to the Supreme Court. With her that day was none other than Justice Alito.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has frequently and appropriately been the forum for many debates over the Supreme Court's operations. I remember in 2011 when Justices Scalia and Breyer appeared before the Judiciary Committee for a wide-ranging discussion of the role of judges under the Constitution.

Our committee also has robust debates about the appropriate degree of transparency for the Court's operation. Earlier this year, the committee approved bipartisan legislation to allow cameras in the Supreme Court so that all Americans can see what is going on.

We are going to continue this debate in the Judiciary Committee over the shadow docket. It is not politicizing the Court to do so. And Republicans have no standing to accuse Democrats of politicizing the Court, especially after their unprecedented, politically motivated blockade of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 and their haste to confirm a third Trump Justice mere weeks before the 2020 election--both acts of raw, political power.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Tuberville for leading this very important effort.

I want to be very clear. What President Biden is proposing here is as close to policy from communist China as we have seen in the United States. In oppressive regimes like Cuba and communist China, we have come to expect a surveillance state where the government has access to every part of a person's life. Now Joe Biden wants to bring that here to America.

Let me explain what the Biden administration and Democrats in Washington are proposing. Democrats want to open your bank account to Federal agents. Under Joe Biden's America, the Federal Government's authority would be vastly expanded so the IRS can get a look at any account over $600. The madness doesn't stop there. This new rule from Joe Biden would also require banks to report every transaction of $600 or more. Does anyone honestly think the Federal Government will keep your private information safe?

Want to buy a bed? Here comes the Federal Government. But say you want to buy a new shotgun. Hunting season is coming up. Again, here come the feds. How about giving money to your favorite charities; supporting a cause or a political candidate you care about; for childcare or paying for mental health counseling? Perhaps you are just selling off a little furniture and want to put your profits in a savings account. For every one of these transactions I have just described, the government is going to come take a look.

Every American should be disgusted and furious by this insane overreach of the Federal Government. Think about the private, personal information the government would have access to. It is incredibly intrusive, and Joe Biden wants to make it nearly limitless. Again, does anyone honestly think the Federal Government would keep your private information safe? I understand that families are angry. I have heard from more than 18,000 constituents over just the last 2 weeks about how disgusted they are with this plan.

Biden wants to expand the surveillance state of the Federal Government to target every American family. Ninety-five percent of American households have a bank account, and this policy will have impacts on every single one of those accountholders. But it is not just banks; Joe Biden is expanding the Federal surveillance state to monitor your finances across the board. They will be watching your local credit union and your PayPal and Venmo accounts. They will even be watching to see how you spend and earn cryptocurrency. This is an outrageous violation of Americans' privacy.

I think the Democrats are also hearing from their constituents. Recent reports say the President and Democrats in the House are looking at raising the threshold from $600 to $10,000. That would still hit many Americans families.

We are not just talking about checking accounts; this applies to savings, retirement, and investment accounts. You name it, the feds want to take a look.

Again, I am not describing something in Cuba or communist China; I am talking about what Joe Biden and the Democrats want to do right here in the U.S.A. I can't wait for my Democratic colleague to explain why President Biden is even proposing this. How can you possibly justify to the American people that the IRS should be snooping around in their bank, retirement, or investment accounts?

There is only one explanation, and it is simply terrifying. The Democrats want to control how you spend your money. Democrats want to control your expenditures, your charitable and

political giving, and your investments. The more power Democrats can grab from American families, the more control they think they will get over each and every American.

This all boils down to Joe Biden and the radical left bringing the American people under the thumb of his socialist tax-and-spend agenda. After all, how else is he going to be able to squeeze every last penny out of American families' bank accounts to pay for his socialist plans?

Here is how the Democratic Party works: They refuse to audit our Federal Agencies that year after year send billions in improper payments to the wrong people, which they rarely ever recover. They refuse to hold their government accountable for reckless waste and massive debt. But they want to put the magnifying glass on hard-working families who are just trying to live their dreams.

Under Biden's socialist regime, it is rules for thee but not for me. How is that different from communist China, where the government lives in opulence while their citizens live totally dependent on the government in poverty?

I will not stand for this outrageous plan. No American should tolerate this unprecedented overreach. I am proud to support Senator Tuberville's legislation and hope every one of my colleagues looks at this for what it is: communist China-style totalitarian surveillance.

I yield back to Senator Tuberville.

President Biden ran on a promise to be a unifying moderate. He promised to bring America together. On the campaign trail, he promised to ``shut down the virus, not the country.'' As we have seen with his vaccine management, the opposite has happened.

Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington have adopted an agenda of systemic socialism focused on expanding government and Federal control. In Joe Biden's America, the government knows better than the people, and President Biden has shown that he is eager to use government mandates to keep families in check.

President Biden's latest vaccine mandate for private companies tramples on the personal freedoms of Americans. This unconstitutional order will push more Americans out of the workforce, devastate our economy with product and service shortages that cripple supply chains, and throw America into a stagflation crisis not seen since the 1970s.

By forcing some working Americans to choose between keeping their jobs or doing what they believe is best for their health, Biden's mandate hurts the people he claims to help--workers, low-income Americans, and seniors on a fixed income, who will all be either hit with higher unemployment, higher prices, or a shortage of available goods.

When I think about the impact of burdensome government regulations, I think about my dad. My adopted father was a truckdriver. Anyone who has driven trucks or been close to someone in that line of work knows how demanding that job can be. It is hard work, and it is one of the most critical jobs in our country. Truckdrivers are like the offensive linemen of America's supply chain--often overlooked but absolutely essential to getting things moving. Our country is already experiencing a significant shortage of truckdrivers. We can't afford to lose any more.

Of course, trucking isn't the only industry that will be affected by Biden's unconstitutional mandate; nearly every sector is under the gun. In an economy where simply keeping shelves stocked is an everyday challenge, losing workers in almost any critical industry will have a catastrophic impact across our supply chains and drive prices even higher.

Just this week, a month and a half before Thanksgiving, Amazon began already giving Black Friday discounts on goods because they expect so many delays and shortages on goods. That means families who have to wait for holiday bonuses before they can go shopping are going to be facing ``out of stock'' signs online and in stores.

Joe Biden needs to answer this question: How is he going to fix this? How can Joe Biden guarantee that our supply chains won't completely crumble under his failed policies and mandates?

In fact, I urge President Biden to have Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo testify to the Commerce Committee on the shortages we are already seeing and the shortages that we anticipate.

Ensuring the stability of American supply chains requires the urgent attention of the Biden administration. As a member of the Commerce Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tourism, Trade, and Export Promotion, I know this testimony from Secretaries Buttigieg and Raimondo would be useful in understanding how this will be addressed.

We are already starting to see major supply issues. Seafood restaurants in Miami are seeing price increases of 50 to 60 percent on fish. Furniture stores in Florida are seeing wait times of 6 to 8 months before they can deliver certain products. Florida grocery stores are warning of product shortages as customers are starting to see empty shelves.

Small business owners and families aren't able to afford those kinds of drastic increases, but if President Biden has his way, those transportation difficulties are going to become even worse and prices will rise even higher. Right now, rising prices on everyday goods are forcing American families to make hard choices.

I have said it on this floor countless times, and I will say it again: Reckless government spending causes inflation. The reckless spending agenda of Joe Biden and Democrats here in Washington is having disastrous effects on families across our country.

We can never forget that, as inflation worsens and prices surge higher, it is the poorest Americans and those on fixed incomes who are hurt the most. There are single moms wondering if they can put an extra few gallons of gas in the car and still afford to put dinner on the table this week or moms like mine who took on odd jobs to make ends meet and watched the smallest price changes at the grocery store to make sure we could still get by.

If President Biden actually spoke with small and midsized employers and hard-working families instead of big banks and CEOs, he would learn that massive Federal mandates won't help us get our economy back on track. His Big Government mandates will only hurt us.

I want to be clear. I got the vaccine. I had COVID. And I encourage every American to talk with their doctor and consider doing the same. But getting the vaccine is a choice every American

gets to make for themselves. We can't give people an ultimatum to comply, quit, or get fired. It is a gross overreach by the Federal Government at a time when we need more jobs, not less; lower prices on everyday goods, not higher.

Unlike Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, I don't believe that government knows better than the American people. My parents didn't have much of a formal education, but they worked hard and made the choices they felt were right for the health and well-being of our family. They relied on government to keep them informed, and they made their own choices. That is how government should work.

That is what I did when I was Governor of Florida. In 2016, Florida was faced with the Zika virus, which impacted newborns. Rather than placing mandates on pregnant women or restricting their travel to areas with local transmission of Zika, which we knew where they were, we simply informed Floridians. We worked to be as transparent as possible and offered free Zika testing to all pregnant women in Florida. That is how the Federal Government should deal with COVID. The government's role in public health is to inform and support, not mandate.

Our country has seen labor shortages caused by Democrats' failed policies of rewarding unemployment, paying people more to stay at home than to get back to work. Energy prices are surging, and inflation is raging. American families can't afford more of President's Biden's radical policy decisions that are inflicting lasting damage and driving our economy backwards.

Restoring and strengthening our supply chains is a critical step in getting the American economy rolling forward.

It is time for President Biden to acknowledge that massive, unconstitutional mandates on private companies won't do anything but hurt American business and throw gasoline on the already raging inflation crisis he has created.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

First, happy birthday. Is it your birthday?

As my colleague knows, the Census Bureau performs critically important functions to collect accurate and timely data. Unfortunately, I am concerned that this nominee will politicize the Census Bureau and will not perform his duties in a fair and unbiased fashion, which this position demands.

I cannot and will not consent to allowing this nominee to move forward in an expedited manner. We should take a vote so every Senator can get on the record with their support or opposition to this nominee. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers a standalone bill that suspends the national debt limit through the end of 2022.

Today's item does not come out of a vacuum. Just last week, the Democratic majority in the House passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through early December. Unfortunately, that bill also included this same suspension of the debt ceiling through 2022. The inclusion of this item meant that not a single Republican in the House supported last week's bill, and not a single Republican in the Senate supported it either.

But today, not content with having run headlong into a brick wall once, the majority is now seeking to do the same thing again. As baseball player and philosopher Yogi Berra once said, today is truly deja vu all over again.

Madam Speaker, I don't know how much more clear Republicans can be on this topic. So long as the Democratic majority continues to insist on spending money hand over fist, Republicans will refuse to help them lift the debt ceiling.

This year alone, the majority has rammed through one partisan spending bill through reconciliation already. That bill spent $1.9 trillion, allegedly for COVID relief, but really about a laundry list of progressive policy priorities. And I remind my friends they were offered a compromise of many hundreds of billions of dollars, but that wasn't sufficient.

Today, the majority is neck-deep in negotiations on an even bigger partisan reconciliation bill, this one supposedly $3.5 trillion but, frankly, likely to run much higher than that. If passed, this one would mean Democrats have pushed through $5\1/2\ trillion of spending in 1 year, which is almost one-and-a-half times the amount of normal Federal spending. And that all comes on top of our regular discretionary and nondiscretionary spending.

Madam Speaker, Republicans have been very clear on this for months. So long as Democrats keep pushing these bloated spending measures, and so long as they continue to ram through partisan policies like those found in the Green New Deal, Republicans will not work with them to raise the debt limit.

Since the beginning of this year, Democrats have been pushing their policy agenda despite having the bare minimum of a majority in both the House and the Senate. The results have been shocking: more Big Government socialism, more spending, and higher taxes. They have been doing all this on their own, with only Democrats voting for these measures.

To be clear, this is the choice the majority has made. They have chosen to govern in a majority-rules fashion. They are pushing through bill after bill larded up with huge spending and more and more Big Government socialism all on their own. The majority also has the power to lift the debt ceiling all on their own, using a process they are quite familiar with, reconciliation.

Since they have chosen to ram the rest of their agenda through on their own, they also have the responsibility to lift the debt ceiling on their own. If they want to keep spending the people's money like this, then they alone must act and take responsibility.

Madam Speaker, my good friend alluded to the fact that he has repeatedly voted for debt ceiling increases in his capacity as a Member. I know that to be true, and I respect my friend. I have done that myself. I have voted under both Republicans and Democrats. But I do want to address this point about the debt limit.

The point was best summed up by Speaker Pelosi in her Dear Colleague letter Sunday night. ``The debt limit is a shared responsibility, and I urge Congress to come together . . . on a bipartisan basis, as it has in the past.'' Oh, really? I think we should look at the record and clear that up.

The last five times that Congress voted on raising the debt limit when Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House, President Biden, who was then in the Senate, didn't vote to raise it a single time. Majority Leader Schumer voted to raise it once out of five times. The Democratic leadership voted to raise it once out of five times.

So to somehow pretend that both sides have not on occasion used the debt ceiling to express their concerns or that everybody has rallied to the cause simply does not square with the facts.

Madam Speaker, I will make a bold prediction. I suspect the debt ceiling will at some point get raised, and I suspect it will be before we reach a deadline. And I share my friend's point that, indeed, that needs to happen.

However, when you launch a program as expensive and as expansive as the Democrats have, and you choose to do it on a partisan line way, then don't shirk the responsibility at the end of the day. Don't try to shift it to others. I think that is what is happening here.

One last point, Madam Speaker. We talk a lot about the Trump debt. I remind my friends they were in control the last 2 years of the Trump Presidency. I remind my friends that most of the debt was actually accumulated in that time. And I do remind my friends it was a bipartisan effort. The biggest part of that debt was COVID relief, which we agreed on, on both sides of the aisle and both supported, and we raised the debt ceiling for it.

So, when we work together, we can solve these problems. My friends have chosen not to work with us, and I think now they are going to have to bear the responsibility. I am sure they are up to the task.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, just to quickly respond to my friend, I remind him, his leadership didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling. I remind him four out of the last five times we had complete control. I remind him that the majority leader in the United States, Mr. Schumer, didn't vote for it four out of five times. And I remind him that then-Senator Biden didn't vote for it once.

So please, please, let's look at the facts here before we start saying how much Democrats have always bellied up to the bar to help us out. That is just simply not the case.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1897 for immediate consideration. This bill is simple: Before the Biden administration can release any illegal immigrant from custody, the person must have a negative COVID-19 test.

Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's crisis at the southern border is not only a humanitarian and a security crisis, but it is also a public health crisis.

Just last week, Secretary Mayorkas admitted that 12,000 migrants in Del Rio, Texas, who were released by the Biden administration, were not tested for COVID-19 and were not subject to any vaccination or testing mandates. This stands in stark contrast with the CDC's continuing embrace of mask mandates, even for the vaccinated.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), my good friend and author of this bill, to further explain the amendment.

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

I am sure my friend from Massachusetts is not aware of this, but Mrs. Miller-Meeks has actually run multiple events for vaccines. She has vaccinated people herself. She has spent 24 years in public health in service to the country.

So I agree with you about the vaccine. Nobody in this body has done more to promote it and administer it than Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), my very good friend, to speak more about the need to ensure illegal immigrants are tested for COVID-19 before being released.

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

Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Massachusetts, if we want to deal with urgent matters, why don't we pass a clean CR and make sure the government doesn't shut down in 48 hours. That is urgent. And hopefully we will be able to get about that business shortly.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, classmate, member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who has been a passionate advocate on this issue and who will speak more about the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly inquire of my friend. I am prepared to close, if my friend is.

Madam Speaker, could I have a quick time check?

Madam Speaker, I can assure Members I won't use it all.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly point out to my friend who has cited a number of statistics on State vaccinations, and I agree with him. Everyone should be vaccinated. I spend a lot of time in my district urging people to do that. I know my good friend from Massachusetts does the same thing.

But with respect to the previous question, nobody is vaccinated that is coming across illegally. They are not tested, and they are not vaccinated. This is really a commonsense item. I am surprised, quite frankly, my friends have not accepted this in some earlier iteration. My friend, Dr. Burgess, mentioned he brought it up multiple times. This is actually something we should agree on.

Let's not just let anybody into our country that has not been tested. And if they are found unvaccinated, give them the vaccine. I think we can argue about immigration all day long. I don't know why in the world we argue about that particular issue at all. What my friend from Iowa is proposing is very much common sense.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a deeply misguided bill. It makes in order one item, a standalone bill lifting the debt ceiling through the end of 2022.

Republicans have been very clear on their stance. So long as Democrats continue to spend, spend, spend on partisan reconciliation bills, Republicans will not act to help them lift the debt ceiling. The majority has been governing in a partisan manner since they took control earlier this year. That is their prerogative.

If they continue to insist on ramming their big government socialist agenda through Congress on narrow partisan votes, then it becomes their responsibility to lift the debt limit on their own.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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