Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to kick people off of healthcare.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees charged to middle-income borrowers.

Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people back home who send us here to fight for them.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so they can go after immigrants once again.

We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.

Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.

Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about immigration.

Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.

Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S. citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just a fact.

Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.

Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection had an average of 3,700

encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a decrease of over 70 percent.

Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.

I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that this country stands for.

This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.

Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.

If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these people?

This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.

Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half since last summer.

Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs, and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working families.

Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13 million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.

Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war off our streets to protect America's kids.

Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search of a better life.

You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten, shameful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges that we face in this country. This is a joke.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.

I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is ridiculous.

We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.

By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching, means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money, no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure that they will not vote for any cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal benefits.''

We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut things that are very meaningful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what they bring to the floor.

At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress, Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.

You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?

Six.

They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has any chance in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this place.

Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.

Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.

Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.

Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA. It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are just over the top and extreme.

Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are they doing?

They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it

across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.

By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources; nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we are here debating something like this when we could be debating something that might make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what I am a little surprised about today is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the debt ceiling.

We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people. Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to the floor.

One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO says.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO score.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was added to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending asylum as we know it.

Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes. That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress, their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.

Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.

Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.

We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget with no questions asked.

They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all know why. Google where they all spend their money on political campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in particular, the most vulnerable in our country.

Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, where do they go?

They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor. That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have 13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?

Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational system better?

No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.

They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing to the floor.

Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?

No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on middle-class home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill does.

Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's access to affordable healthcare?

No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides quality coverage to millions.

There are very real issues that regular people in this country face every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.

This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.

I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst their base.

This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation and a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, our national debt now stands at about $32 trillion.

How did we get here? Whose fault is it? Republicans? Democrats?

Well, the answer is, yes, both parties are at fault for different reasons. Republicans come to this floor and will come to this floor today saying: We need unlimited military spending.

And Democrats will come to this floor and say: We need unlimited welfare spending.

And guess what happens. They compromise. People say Washington doesn't compromise. They compromise all the time. That is what this debt deal that is before us is, a compromise. But the compromise is always to spend more money.

How do we know that? The debt deal that has been crafted by Biden and McCarthy is an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling. Historically, when we raise the debt ceiling, it would be $100 billion or $200 billion or--God forbid--$1 trillion. It was a dollar amount.

This debt ceiling will go up until January 2025. How many dollars will be borrowed? As many as they can possibly shovel out the door. It will be how much money can you shovel out the door until January 2025. That is how much we will spend. Is there a dollar amount? No. How much can you shovel it out and how fast can you shovel it out? There will be no restraint from this debt deal.

There is a pretense. There is a playing around the edges as if, oh, there might be a cut here or there might be a cut there.

There are no cuts. Why? Two-thirds of your spending is entitlement spending. The on-budget entitlement spending is Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs. They are called mandatory, and no one ever looks at them. They go on in perpetuity. This is what drives the deficit.

Who took them off the table? How come there is no discussion of this? Actually, Republicans took them off the table because they feared being criticized by the Democrats.

It is being used in the Presidential campaign: Let's not talk about the entitlements. But that is two-thirds of what gets spent every year. If you don't talk about the entitlements, if you don't talk about mandatory spending, you, frankly, are not a serious person, and you will not make a serious dent in this problem.

So we have taken off the table all mandatory spending--no discussion of it. Does this mean they are in good shape? Is Medicare and Social Security and all these programs in good shape? Heck no, they are not in good shape. They are all running out of money. They are headed toward bankruptcy.

Is anybody brave enough to reform them? No, not a damn thing is going to be done for any of them. But when you take them off the table--take all the entitlement spending off the table and do nothing about it, now we are down to one-third of the budget. So now you are going to try to do budgetary reform, while excluding two-thirds of the spending, on one-third.

But it is worse than that. The one-third they call discretionary spending. It is about $1.6 trillion. Half of that is military. So they took that off the table.

So mandatory spending--entitlements--is going up 5 percent under this deal because that is what it has been doing for years and years. It is going up 5 percent. The military is going up 3 percent.

So what is left? What are we left looking at? We are looking at one- sixth of the budget, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent--a small sliver of the budget. It is called nonmilitary discretionary, and they think we are going to do some type of fiscal reform on that small sliver of government.

Well, guess what. You can't do it. You can eliminate all of the nonmilitary discretionary money. Leave the mandatory in place. Leave the military in place. Increase them. Eliminate all this other chunk of money, and you still never balance the budget.

There was a time when there was a conservative movement, and the conservative movement had a voice in Washington. There is still some voice but not much. But there was a time when people on the conservative side of this said: Well, in order to be a thoughtful, rational, realistic, strong response to the budget deficit, you would have to balance your budget in 5 years. In fact, we voted on a constitutional amendment in this body, and every Republican voted for it. But it said you had to balance in 5 years.

Why 5 years? Well, because most of the plans that lasted longer than that, most of the plans that balanced in years 9 and 10 were basically somebody fudging the numbers and hoping something good would happen in year 9 or 10, but the only years they actually had any power over were the first year or two, and there weren't very many cuts. And they always had unrealistic expectations in year 10.

So what I have done? I said: Let's look at 5 years. What would it take?

So about 5 or 6 years ago, I began introducing something called the penny plan. And what would it do? It would cut one penny out of every dollar. It actually would balance. Actually, the first year I did it, I didn't even cut 1 percent. I froze spending for 5 years, and the budget would have balanced. But the trick is--or not the trick but the truth is that you have to cut all spending or freeze all spending. You can't just freeze a sliver of spending.

So people talked about: Oh, there is a 1-percent trigger on the discretionary spending. That is $16 billion.

They are going to add $4 trillion in debt over the next 2 years, and they say: ``But by golly, we might save $16 billion,'' which even that is not going to happen because the trigger isn't real, doesn't have muscle, and will be evaded.

But the thing is that if we were to balance the budget over 5 years, what would happen is there now needs to be about a 5-percent cut of all the spending each year for 5 years and then the budget would balance.

You say: Well, isn't that just a number? What would that mean to real people? Why do I care whether the budget is balanced?

Well, go to the grocery store, go to buy gas, go to buy anything, go to pay your rent, look at your cost of living and look at what inflation is doing to you.

Who does inflation hurt the worst? Those on fixed incomes and those of the working class because they don't have extra expendable income. Most of their income goes to things that they have to purchase each month.

But where does inflation come from?

The Senator from Indiana described it accurately. We run a debt. This place spends money we don't have, and where is the deficit made up for? We sell that debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys it. And it is like: Wow, this is a great system. We spend money we don't have. We print up these things called Treasury bills. The Federal Reserve comes over and buys them. Wow. We can just do anything we want. We have the printing press. But when they create new money and that new money enters into circulation, that is inflation.

Inflation is an increase in the money supply, and when you increase the money supply and you chase the same amount of goods, you are going to chase the prices right up. That is where inflation comes from.

So the debt is not just a number. The debt is about the value of your paycheck. It is about how far your paycheck goes.

So right now we are in a bit of a spiral. We have had 9 percent inflation. It is a little lower now, but we have had as high as 9 percent, and I think the cost of living increase for Social Security went up 9 to match that. But you will actually find people who say: You know, even with the 9-percent increase, I still can't buy everything I need. I am actually still being squeezed.

But it is a bait and switch. It is because your government isn't honest with you. If your government wanted to be honest with you, and they say: We are going to be everything to everyone, and we are going to give you stuff--it is funny because we have this comparison sometimes with Sweden. People say and many Democrats will say: We want to be Sweden. We want to be Sweden, and we are going to give you everything. And we are going to have a big government that coddles you from cradle to grave.

But do you know how they do it in Sweden? With a balanced budget. I am not advocating we become Sweden, but they balance their annual budget every year.

Do you know how they got to have all that free stuff to give everybody, how they have a safety net that includes everything including college, free healthcare, everything? They tax everybody an enormous amount of tax.

Over here the bait and switch is they will say: We are just going to tax the rich people. It is easy. Just tax the rich people.

They don't do that in Sweden, though. In Sweden, they tax everybody. It is a 60-percent income tax beginning at $60,000 a year. Everybody pays. The middle class pays.

So if we wanted to be to honest and we were to say, ``We are going to give you this massive safety net. You don't have to work. Everybody can have a basic income, and do all this,'' we would be honest or we should be honest and say it would take massive taxes.

Instead, there is a dishonesty, but the dishonesty is on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats say that welfare is free and the safety net is free and Social Security is free and all these things are free.

What do the Republicans say? The military industrial complex is free. You can have all the weapons you want. You can give hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, and it won't cost anything because we will just print it up.

See, there were times in our history when you went through a war or with the devastation of war in World War II, the people actually suffered, and you could see the suffering and people felt like they had to pay something. But now we just put it on the tab.

But there is a point at which the tab gets so large that there can be something precipitous happening. The question has always been, Is this a gradual problem where we will just have to deal with a little inflation, 5 or 10 percent here, or is there a point at which there is a calamity?

If you look at the stock market for the last 100 years, some people will point to 7 different days in which like 80 or 90 percent of the downturn occurred in 7 days in the last century.

Is there a possibility of calamity when we are so destructive to our dollar, when we are so destructive to good sense?

I think the American people want more from us. Recent polls have said 60 percent of Americans say don't raise the debt ceiling without significant reform. Forty-three Republicans--forty-four of us, actually, said: We want significant reforms before we raise the debt ceiling.

But then the devil is in the details. The devil is in concluding what is significant and what is not significant. So what will end up happening--my prediction here--is almost every Democrat will vote to raise the debt ceiling and about half the Republicans will vote. It will be a 75-25 vote, and in the end, the debt ceiling will go up.

The people will say: It is good. We didn't have a calamity. The stock market didn't crash because we didn't pay our debt.

But you might want to ask yourself: Is this really a contrived controversy? Is there really a reason in which we would ever default? Is there a reason why we wouldn't make our interest payment? We bring in $5 trillion, and our interest payment is $500 billion.

So that would be like you make $100,000, and your mortgage payment is $10,000. If you made $100,000 and your mortgage payment is $10,000, is there any chance you would ever default? Is there any reason you wouldn't cut your other expenditures to prioritize your interest so you don't get kicked out of your house? That is what every American family would do, but we don't do it up here.

So we threaten default. We scare the markets and say: Oh, no, we will default if the debt ceiling doesn't come up.

No, we would default only if we refused to cut spending. So we spend a trillion dollars more than comes in every year. That is the problem.

If we simply said: We are going to pay the $500 billion, 10 percent of our revenue for next year. We are going to pay the interest no matter what. And guess what. We will tell the marketplace we are never going to default. We are never going to default. We will always do that. That would be great. The market would go gangbusters and say: We no longer have to worry about those knuckleheads. They finally decided they would pay their interest, and they always will.

Then what would happen?

Well, we wouldn't have enough money for everything. So then we should look at where we can save money.

The problem has always been this. Republicans point at Democrats and say: We don't like your programs. Let's cut your programs.

Democrats look at Republicans and say: No, no, no. Don't cut our programs. Cut yours.

Everybody is ``Don't cut mine, cut yours.''

That is why I have taken the approach and continue to take the approach that we cut everything across the board. In the past, there were always conservatives who said: Let's get rid of Public Television. Let's get rid of ``Sesame Street'' and Big Bird, and they would get so much grief over that. It is like, why do that? You are not balancing the budget over Big Bird. Take 1 percent of Big Bird's budget. Take 1 percent of everybody's budget.

What would that bring about? It would bring about more conservation of the dollar. It would bring about more restraint and more reform.

I will end with this. People ask: Where would you cut? I would say everywhere. But I can give you on the tip of my hand, ridiculous stuff that should have a 100 percent cut, but it is never cut, and it goes on and on. In the early 1970s, William Proxmire, a conservative Democrat, pointed out that the National Science Foundation was spending $50,000 to study what makes people fall in love. Now that is a better, I think, topic for Cosmopolitan magazine than it is for a government study.

Nowadays, it has gone up. We spent a million dollars having young people take selfies of themselves while smiling and then looking at it later in the day to see if looking at pictures of yourself smiling makes you a happier person. That cost you a million bucks.

We spent $1\1/2\ million studying the mating call of the Panamanian frog to see if the mating call of the country frogs is different from the city frogs.

We spent nearly a million dollars studying the Japanese quail to see if they are more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine. I think we could have just polled the audience on that one.

This is the kind of ridiculous stuff--but does it get better? I complain about this every year and all the time and everybody shakes their head and says: No way. Why are we doing that? For the National Science Foundation, we increased their budget 50 percent last year. People said: Oh, we have to compete with China. So let's give the National Science Foundation more money.

We almost increased their budget by 50 percent--the people who are studying why you go on dates, why you are happy, what the male frog's mating call is. This is the craziness, but it never gets better because we always spend more money.

So my amendment would do this: My amendment would reduce the spending in real terms. We would actually spend less money next year than last year. It would be a 5-percent reduction in money. You would spend less each year, and, over 5 years, you would balance your budget. Then it would be on course to balance.

People ask: Who can do this?

Half of Europe does it. Sweden balances their budget. Germany balances their budget. Over half of the countries in Europe run on an annual balanced budget.

Our profligacy and our spending are catching up to us. I say we act now. I recommend a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. President, years ago--talking like 15, maybe 18 years ago--I was speaking in a town in Oklahoma, and my daughter wanted to go with me, which was great. So we took off. I had reserved a hotel. And so we get there. We were going to stay overnight. And I was speaking somewhere the next morning.

We arrive at the hotel late that evening. When I got there and checked in, I knew initially we were in trouble. You have that feeling when you pull up to the hotel and you think this may not work. Pull up, check in, but there is no one at the desk. And then it just gets harder as we get to our room. It is dark. Lots of light bulbs are out in the pathway to get to our room to check in. And, actually, when I shut the door and the two of us came in, I shut the door behind us, and the crack underneath the door was so large I could physically see the patio and the balcony and everything outside. And it was so loud because it was right next to the highway. I thought, We are in trouble. This is just not going work. So we ended up packing everything up and just going to search and find another place and thinking there is no way we will both be able to sleep.

Why do I tell you this silly story? Well, when we were traveling and heading there, we anticipated one thing, and then when we got there and got to the hotel, it ended up being different.

I have to tell you, this past weekend, when I read through the 99 pages of the debt ceiling bill, I would read through a section of it, and I would get to the end of that section and be surprised at the ``except for'' at the tail end of each section. It is not what I expected when I read through the document, page after page.

I have to tell you, we are a nation that leads the world. We have the world's largest economy. We are to be responsible in how we handle our budget in the process. We are to get it right because we are the United States of America.

And I have been concerned for quite a while with the trajectory of our spending. And it challenges us as a nation to be able to change the trajectory of our spending because we have to start working back to balance. We can't get to balance in a year. It is going to take a long time to get there, but we have to get started in this process.

And my frustration has been that sometimes we seem to start and then we stop again and then we start and then we stop again.

In the several years that I have been here in the U.S. Congress, I voted for some debt ceiling increases because they changed the trajectory, and I voted against some because they were status quo or they didn't. I had higher expectations for this one.

Now, initially, when it came out, it was, this is going to save $2 trillion. And then it slowly got downgraded to it is going to save $1.5 trillion. Then, when we read the fine print and everybody was talking about how much it was going to save, I got to the fine print and found out, actually, it increases spending 3.3 percent next year, and the year after that it increases spending 1 percent again.

It actually doesn't decrease spending at all. It increases spending, both this year and next year. But then it has the promise of the next 8 years after that--it will only grow 1 percent a year after that every single year, except that is not an agreement this Congress can make. This Congress can only vote on things for this particular session of Congress. We can't commit the next Congress to actions of this Congress. Each Congress stands on its own. And everyone knows that.

It sounds good to say it is going to save these trillions of dollars in the next 8 years, except each Congress will actually vote on a budget for the next 8 years, and there is no commitment from future Congresses by this one to do that.

In fact, I have been here long enough to be able to see agreements being made for what a future Congress will do that didn't actually happen.

And so the $1.5 trillion in savings is only a decrease of the increase of how much we were ``planning to spend but actually hadn't budgeted'' because as many people may know, there is not a budget set for the next year of what we were going to spend. So CBO just assumed we were going to increase at least by inflation and any amount less than inflation is suddenly savings when there was no budget that was actually set.

So my first big surprise was, it actually doesn't reduce spending; it actually increases spending.

The next big surprise came when I started looking at how even some of the ``savings'' are actually managed. There is a supplemental piece that is in this or a piece that is set aside where it takes what they call rescissions--I am not going to get into budget gobbledygook that is tough for us all to be able to process. But there is about $22 billion that is taken out of items that were COVID spending that are not going to be spent and pulls it over into the Department of Commerce and leaves it there in the Department of Commerce amount and says we will decide later how to spend it.

Now, I ask the obvious question: Isn't this supposed to go to deficit reduction?

And the answer came back: Well, a few billion went to deficit reduction, but $22 billion actually went over into the Department of Commerce's budget and is being parked there, and they will have other opportunities to be able to spend those dollars in the future.

That is not really a savings on the rescission. There is permitting reform in this, which I am grateful for. Quite frankly, there is bipartisan support for permitting reform in many areas because we can't get lithium and cobalt. We can't move solar and wind power because of permitting, just like we can't move natural gas and hydrogen and CO2 because of permitting issues. We have to do major reforms in those areas to be able to make sure we can actually produce more energy for the future of our country.

So when I saw the permitting issues, then I thought, good, we need to get started on some of these permitting issues--except when I read through it, there seems to be a lot of exceptions to it.

For instance, there is a 2-year commitment to say, if you are doing the more strict environmental impact statement, you have to get it done in 2 years--well, unless the administration declares it complex, and then they have a lot more time; in fact, an infinite amount of time.

It limits you to 150 pages for an environmental impact statement, which is good; that actually brings the paper down--unless the administration declares it complex, and then it is a whole lot more. It limits the number of pages even, unless it is the appendix. If the administration declares actually these can go in the appendix, then there is actually no cap, no limit for that.

It also says that, in this time period piece, that if you get to 2 years from the environmental impact statement and if they don't achieve that--I asked a logical question: If an administration and an Agency doesn't get it done in 2 years, what happens?

The answer is: Well, you have to sue the Federal Government and that Agency to make them do it. And then it has to go through the court system, which, as this body knows, will take 2 or 3 years. If the court finds in favor, then the court can then declare the Agency has another 90 days to be able to get it resolved--unless it is considered complex, and then they have unlimited time.

So the permitting piece, as I read through it, I thought, why are there all these exceptions that are out there that give it an out for every single portion of it?

There is a section of the bill that talks about what is called administrative pay-go. That is a rule that has existed in some administrations before where they will say that if you are going to add a cost to America through an administrative action, you have to look somewhere else to decrease the cost, because by the Constitution, only this Congress can actually increase spending; that is not something the administration has the constitutional authority to do. That is a reasonable rule.

It puts in this administrative pay-go to say, if spending is going to increase based on a regulation, it has to decrease somewhere else. That sounds great--until I get to the very end of it, and it literally says: unless the Director of the Office of Management and Budget considers the additional spending necessary. No restrictions.

If it is considered necessary, then they have an unlimited amount that they can do. Even that restriction actually goes away on January 1, 20 days before President Biden's term ends, so it is not even all the way through the last 3 weeks. Even that restriction goes away. And I can't figure out why, suddenly, it gives 3 weeks of home base without a restriction like that. And why, if we are going to put a restriction in there, why end it in 2 years anyway? If it is a good idea, it should be a good idea for every President, not just for this one. Why would there be, suddenly, an out clause in it?

There is a 1-percent sequester that is across the board if appropriations are not done.

Now, I have to tell you, I worked with Senator Maggie Hassan on the other side of the aisle to resolve a way to end government shutdowns and actually do appropriations. We should do all 12 appropriation bills. The Senator who is chairwoman of Appropriations is on the floor right now. She and I have had these conversations. She has committed to doing all 12 appropriations bills. So am I. We can bring back regular order and actually go through the process.

We don't all agree on everything here in the body. Welcome to America, where 320 million Americans don't agree on everything. OK, well, let's talk it all out. Let's have the debate. Let's have the vote and go from there. We haven't had that ability in years.

Senator Maggie Hassan and I have a bill dealing with ending government shutdowns and pushing us towards doing the 12 appropriations bills. That is not a bipartisan bill. Frankly, it is a nonpartisan bill. I don't find anyone here who doesn't actually want to get us back to regular order. So we are trying to find a logical way to be able to do it.

But the way this bill sets up the sequestration to put this towards those 12 appropriation bills, it says that if appropriation bills are not done by April 1 next year, there is a 1-percent, across-the-board cut that will happen in the current year spending in the last 5 months of the year.

That is a pretty big spending. Except it really only hits defense because the way it is set up is nondefense will actually go up and defense will actually be cut by 1 percent from last year's amount.

What in the world? Why would it be structured that way?

No. 1, why would we set up a sequestration piece at all as an incentive? No. 2, why would it be designed in a shape where it hits defense and not nondefense in the way it is actually set up? And, No. 3, when there were other options, like Senator Hassan and I, through our proposal to deal with ending government shutdowns and to get to actual appropriations, why wouldn't we do something like that that is nonpartisan, that is simple and straightforward to be able to do?

The student loan suspension. There has been much publicity on the right about, well, this ends the student loan suspensions, except it ends it on July 30, when President Biden already says he is ending it on August 30. In fact, CBO looked at it and said this doesn't save any money at all because it was already going away. It doesn't really change anything. It literally moves it forward a month but doesn't change a thing.

Then there is a work requirement process. I have to tell you: I am a big believer in work requirements. Not everybody here in this body is on that. I think work is dignity. I think work encourages families and brings dignity to a family and an individual unlike anything else that a family can bring. I think it is great for kids to grow up in a community where the adults around them work and set that example, and they build on that. There is just a unique dignity in work.

Quite frankly, some of that just comes from what I have seen, and some of that comes from my faith, because when I look at even scripture, there was work in the Garden before the fall. Work is not a consequence of the fall. Work is a gift from God that gives us purpose and meaning and helps us set the next example. Anything we can do as a culture to encourage a culture of work, I think, is beneficial to people in families.

I understand full well there are those who are disabled, those that have kids. There are situations where it can't be done. I completely respect that. But in this particular bill, the incentives for work requirements has a little caveat stuck in the back of it that says all of this applies to these States and they can't take all these waivers where they pull away work requirements--they can't do those things unless Secretary Becerra--the Secretary of HHS--declares that that State is doing good work to try anyway. There are no restrictions on it. It just says solely that if Secretary Becerra decides that, it gets waived.

So as I look at the bill, I see a lot of good intentions in the bill, but I see a whole lot of exceptions. And I see a whole lot of ability for the administration to waive that, waive that, waive that, waive that. That undercuts the purpose of the bill.

Quite frankly, as a Congress, I wish that we could sit down across the aisle and we could have dialogue to say: What is Congress's responsibility? What are the policies that are wise policies? And not hand authority to the White House--Republican or Democratic--and say: Which is good policy that we need to put in place and do those things? One day, we will get back to that, but that day wasn't today. And that is frustrating for me.

I am going to oppose this bill today, but I want us to be able to keep working because we still have work to do, as one side knows as well. I know Congress is focused on this today, rightfully so. The American people expect us to get this resolved.

Tulsa Race Massacre

Mr. President, can I just tell you a little heartbeat issue for me? It is June 1. That may not mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but for those of us from Oklahoma, today is the 102nd anniversary of the worst race massacre in American history.

It happened in Tulsa, OK, May 31, overnight, to June 1. And 102 years ago today, Greenwood was a smoking heap of rubble after an all-night violence

and massacre on hundreds of Black Americans in North Tulsa.

It is a stain on our Nation. It is a stain on our State.

And 102 years later, I hope we still pause and remember as a State and we continue to learn the lessons and continue to be able to work towards being a more perfect union.

Today, the Greenwood Rising museum is open. Folks are coming in and out, talking about what happened 102 years ago. Folks at the John Hope Franklin Center for Reconciliation are engaging in conversation. There are community groups all over North Tulsa, meeting with people just to be able to talk and to say: What have we learned 102 years later? How can we still be better as a Nation still?

We learned a lot. We have grown a lot. But it is unfinished business for us.

So on June 1, I remind us as a body, there was a massacre 102 years ago today. We shouldn't ignore this moment to remember how we take tragedy to triumph.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the MVP. They call it the Mountain Valley Pipeline; I call it the most valuable pipeline we have to offer energy to the people of America.

It has been under tow for a long time. I brought some illustrations of what we are going through because my good friend from Virginia, the Senator from Virginia who just spoke--and we respectfully disagree on this--this is something we have worked on for an awful long time.

First, I want to make sure everybody understands that you cannot get permission to move forward on a pipeline, transmission line, anything you want in this country, unless there is a market for it. You have to show that there is a person or a group or a market that this product-- whether it is electricity on transmission lines or gas in the pipelines or oil or whatever, there has to be a market. You can't go from here to there and try to build a market. So there has to be a need. There has to be a need. If there is going to be a need in the market, then it starts proceeding, and then it goes through the process.

This was started over 8 years ago, going through that process. I don't think there is another permit that has ever been more scrutinized--or a request for a permit--than this Mountain Valley Pipeline.

It is the Mountain Valley Pipeline. We will call it the MVP. FERC has approved the MVP three times--not one time, three times--basically, over 8 years of review. It started with the Obama administration, went through the Trump administration, and now into the Biden administration. And we are as desperate for the fuel today as we are.

Let's look at the people and basically where the need is. This pipeline is 42 inches. It takes the most oil shale. First of all, it goes into an area that basically is deprived of natural resources themselves. Let me tell you some of the areas we are going to be able to serve in a direct and indirect way. Our military bases in North Carolina and South Carolina are in desperate need.

There was another pipeline coming out of the same shale of gas called the Atlantic Coast Pipeline that went on for years. It went on for years and was finally scrubbed because the price got so exorbitant that there was no way to continue, and they could not get through the litigation that went on for years. After about $6 or $7 billion, Dominion Energy basically pulled the plug on it. They couldn't do it.

So when they tell you that everything is fine and they did all this, wherever there were problems, they are sent back. If someone doesn't like this or that, they send it back. They went through it three times. Now, when FERC goes through it, it is a pretty arduous process. They look into everything. And if the courts basically say look at this, then they do that, and they correct that and send it back, and they find something else.

Wouldn't you think that they would see it all the first time if they saw any problems whatsoever that needed corrected?

So, as I said, it has been thoroughly vetted for 8 years by the Obama and Trump and Biden administrations, and eight NEPA reviews. Anyone who has gone through any NEPA review knows how difficult that can be. Eight times NEPA has reviewed this. There are six environmental impact studies. The environmental impact studies can go from 1 to 3 years. Six times, it went back to them.

So when anyone thinks this has not been scrutinized and has not basically gone through every Agency that it was required to go through and had every review done that possibly could be done, they would be mistaken, if you see just the outline of things.

Three rounds of permitting were approved by FERC. They approved all of them. It still wasn't good enough. It still wasn't good enough. It went through the courts and back it came. It went through the courts and back it came. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife, they all went through it. Everybody had a good look at this thing.

Now we have a situation where if you looked at Winter Storm Elliott in December of 2022, the Carolinas have the highest natural gas prices in the country--$50 to $60 per million Btu--$50 to $60 dollars. Normally, in the Appalachian Basin, that is anywhere from $2.50 to $6 dollars to where it stays. But because they did not have the product and the demand was so high, the people are getting gouged.

You tell me of an average family or a hard-working family who can afford $50 or $60 per million Btu. It is 10 times the normal rate.

So is there a need? Absolutely, there is a need. Is there basically a need for pricing that is stabilized and helps people get through tough times and helps them take care of their family and home and also the job they work in? Absolutely. So you have that.

Duke Energy says the MVP will save 4.5 million customers $3 billion over 25 years. Duke Energy is a very large power company within North Carolina, and they are saying that we don't have that product. We need this product. They were counting on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to get that product. That didn't happen. Now we are counting on MVP.

But guess who gets gouged? Everybody talks about big business and companies and this and that. But 4.5 million customers--that is who is going to pay the price.

When you talk about price, let's talk about this. This line, when they started on this pipeline, there was an approximate cost of $3.5 billion to build it. We are over $6.6 billion now. Who do you think is going to pay that price? It is going to be paid by the customers who need the product. They are paying $50 to $60 per million Btu, and they should be paying $4 to $6, in that range there, and I guarantee you the savings would be tremendously supportive to their families.

So as we have talked, we had a lot going on here, a lot of different conversations. There is a new Summit View Business Park in Franklin County in southwest Virginia. It is struggling to attract businesses to that park that would create opportunities and jobs for the hard-working people in southwest Virginia, just like all of West Virginia. They cannot attract or furnish the energy at the plant that the park needs to attract the different industries that would like to come. So for economic development, just having a job, taking care of your family, and living in beautiful southwest Virginia, they don't have that opportunity now.

In North Carolina, Cumberland County and Fayette have lost out on $1 billion of investment because the businesses cannot afford the high price of gas. And we have an abundance of it in

West Virginia and Pennsylvania and coming out of the eastern part of Ohio. We are willing to share it and put it in the market and keep the prices where they should be--affordable.

So the review process which has been incredibly thorough and rigorous with eight NEPA reviews, six environmental impact statements, two environmental assessments, three rounds of review by the same Federal Agencies--FERC, Fish and Wildlife, Forest Service, and BLM--and that is a mighty lift in itself. It has been before the court numerous times-- nine times, to be exact--nine times before the courts. When does it stop? When does it stop? The cost has ballooned, as I said, and doubled in price, and here we are.

Now, you would think that we are just trying to get this line started. It is going to be 303 miles. But guess what: 283 miles are already built. It is already laid in the ground.

Now, they said there have been violations because there is sedimentation going on, and they didn't go back and reseed. They weren't allowed to because of the court actions that prohibited them from getting back on the property. It is a catch-22. They could not reclaim what they wanted to reclaim because they were taken to court and stopped, and then they were brought to task again for not reclaiming it.

If we pass this piece of legislation, within 6 months this line will be in production. We only have 20 miles to go. That would put 2,500 people to work--2,500 people to work.

About $40 to $50 million annually will be coming to the States of West Virginia and some to Virginia, as it passes through. There is about $200 to $250 million that will go to individuals who own their gas rights that are being sold and put into the line. That is every year. That is tremendous support for the poorest parts of our country. In the poorest parts of our country, the people are finally able to sell what they own, their resources, and to help stabilize the prices or help all people in the States that are affected.

There is $1.2 billion in additional investment to complete the project. We have tried everything humanly possible. We really have. I just couldn't believe that we couldn't get this to work after what happened to the previous lines they were trying to build to bring product to the marketplace.

So there is all different people who are upset. I understand that. My good friend from Virginia, my Senate friend--we were co-Governors together and our families are very close. This doesn't affect our relationship, our friendship, and it doesn't affect, basically, us fighting for many of the same causes. But it brings a healthy discussion: Are we going to move forward in this country? Are we going to have permit reform? Are we going to be able to build the necessary transmission that it takes?

I am talking about powerlines. They are the same. If anything, it takes longer for a powerline, for pipelines. Everything is being stopped now. It is not that they are protesting the pipe itself. They are protesting basically the product in the pipe, the gas.

Now, there is a transition going on in energy throughout the country--a transition throughout the world, to a certain extent--but we still cannot run our country without the gas, without the oil, without the coal that we need for dispatch. That means 24/7. Just gas and coal itself is over 60 percent of the energy we use.

In this system here, right where we are in this beautiful Capitol, this is a PJM system, which they call it, and it is basically what this is all about. It is basically ``all of the above.'' It is wind, solar. It is coal. It is gas. It is everything that gives the reliability that, when you turn that switch on, you are going to have lights. When you turn the heat on, you are going to be warm. When you turn this air conditioner on, you are going to have comfort. When you cook your food, you are going to be able to do it. That is what we are able to do in America.

And as that transitions, there will be a transition into new technology that will replace an awful lot of what we are talking about. But we are a long way away from that, and to deprive people who need this for their livelihood, to deprive them and make them pay 10 times more for a product that is abundant--it would be different if the Good Lord didn't give us the resources. But it is a shame and a sin that we don't use the resources we have to help all humankind. That is what we are talking about.

And if you look at the process we have just gone through and where we are right now and what we embark on this evening, we will probably be here most of the night, I would say, going through the amendments. Everybody has to have their say. I agree. But we have come to the reality and we have been here long enough understanding that this piece of legislation that we have before us has to pass. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is in that piece of legislation. It still has some review processes. We are not asking for that. We are asking, basically, that the things that have been done multiple times proceed on--that it proceeds on. That is all we are asking for.

But with that, when you think about 3 or 4 months ago, we started talking seriously about the debt ceiling. We have got to address the debt ceiling. That is our responsibility to address it and make sure the full faith and credit of this country and the value of us having the reserve currency of the world is stable--that it is stable.

If we pass an amendment or any amendment--this amendment my dear friend is going to introduce or any amendment--we will default. It is as simple as that. We will default.

Now, it would be different if this had not gone through 8 years of scrutiny, in court nine times, been looked at any way and every way, shape, and form. That would be a different thing--if no one has ever seen anything, if we are trying to slide something through. That is not the case here. No one can accuse that of happening.

So we are in the process right now of trying to move forward in this country to get the energy that we need, that we have. It is unbelievable to me when the people were thinking sometime: Well, maybe we will have Iran produce more oil. Maybe we will have Venezuela produce more.

We have it in our backyard, and we can't produce it ourselves? We want someone else to do the work that we won't do for ourselves? That is ridiculous.

You can't lead that way. You can't have the rest of the world looking at you as the superpower of the world that won't do for yourself because you don't like something. We found ways through innovation, not elimination, to do it better. And we can help the rest of the world, and we can help the global climate because of this if we work together.

But I can assure you that what we have today before us is a product that is going to help an awful lot of people--4.5 million just in one State that depends on this product to give them some relief and are paying the highest prices. They are already at the highest prices in the country except for the Northeast.

So I would say there is so much at risk right now. If we move forward and we pass this amendment that would go on this bill, that would have to go back to the House with us not defaulting. We cannot take that risk.

I would ask my colleagues--all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--instead of what we are doing, consider basically the value that this product brings. Consider also the reviews this product has gone through, and I think you will find it more than adequate and more than comforting that, basically, we have a product that is going to do an awful lot of good for America, an awful lot of good for humankind in the States. And, also, this will backfill and also help us toward where we are sending LNG to our allies around the world. There are so many benefits from 2 billion cubic feet a day--2 billion. Two billion cubic feet a day will go through this line, helping America to be energy independent.

So I encourage all of my colleagues to vote respectfully against the amendment that will be offered to strip this out of the bill.

I yield the floor.