Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration is a complete and dangerous failure at our southern border.

Last month, I joined nearly 60 of my House Republican colleagues to witness firsthand the Biden administration's catastrophe at Eagle Pass, Texas, in the Del Rio sector of our southern border.

After being briefed by Border Patrol at the southern border, it became clear to me that this administration has allowed dangerous terrorists, drug traffickers, child sex traffickers, and other human traffickers to enter this country easily as a result of this administration's wide open southern border policies.

In fact, since Joe Biden took office, 361 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watch list have been apprehended attempting to cross our southern border illegally.

Who in the world knows how many from that terrorist watch list were among the millions of got-aways, people who weren't apprehended at the southern border?

In addition to these terrorists coming through our borders, more than 54,000 pounds of fentanyl has been intercepted at American borders. Now, I know fentanyl well. I am an anesthesiologist by trade. We use it in the operating room all the time. 54,000 pounds of fentanyl is enough to kill the entire human population of the planet. That is the amount that was intercepted at the southern border. Only God knows how much was not intercepted at the southern border because our Border Patrol agents, instead of patrolling the border, are processing illegal immigrants into our interior through the asylum process.

As we stood at the banks of the Rio Grande watching this catastrophe unfold at our southern border, the President of the United States that very same day that we were down there chose to help the flow of illegal immigration by actually sending his lawyers into Federal court to remove the razor wire that the Texas Department of Public Safety had put up to protect their communities from the invasion, the protection that Joe Biden was not providing to the State of Texas or to the rest of America.

Now, while speaking to the press yesterday, Joe Biden, with a straight face, declared: ``I've done all I can do. Just give me the power. . . . Give me the Border Patrol, give me the people, the judges--give me the people who can stop this and make it work right.''

Wow is all I have to say. The American people know that he refuses to admit that during his first 100 days in office, he took 94 executive actions on immigration, most notably including the halting of the construction of the border wall.

Now, I will note, Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting. He has got a wall around his house, but he won't put a wall around our country to protect us from invasion.

In August 2022, President Biden and his administration decided to make the border crisis worse by formally ending President Trump's successful remain in Mexico program. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the President could at any time reinstate the program under the same statutes and laws that were in place during President Trump. President Biden could reinstate remain in Mexico tonight.

I would suggest if the President is listening, Mr. President, you asked yesterday what you can do. Pick up a pen, reinstate remain in Mexico.

If that wasn't bad enough, the Biden administration announced on May 10, 2023, that it would allow for the release of migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them. Millions of people entering the United States, given identification papers, even if we really have no idea who they are, and we are not tracking them at all. That is mind-boggling to most Americans.

Make no mistake, Joe Biden absolutely has the power to stop this invasion. He is simply unwilling to do it and unwilling to use those powers.

It is a reckless dereliction of duty for the Biden administration, our border czar Kamala Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas to continually allow the cartels to smuggle both humans and fentanyl into our streets without putting an end to this crisis. It is well within his power.

Last year, in May, House Republicans passed the Secure the Border Act, a comprehensive immigration overhaul that would protect and secure the United States from illegal immigration, force the Biden administration to restart construction of the border wall, end catch and release--very important--and increase the number of Border Patrol agents to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl into this country.

House Republicans passed that bill a year ago, but Leader Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate refuse to even take up the bill for a vote. Shame on them. If President Biden were really serious about fixing the crisis at our southern border, he would end it today by reinstating the successful border policies put in place by President Trump and instructing the Senate to pass H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act passed by House Republicans, tomorrow before they go home on their weekend break.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.

The gentleman is from a border State, but, Mr. Speaker, it is true that every State is now a border State. Our communities are being deluged with individuals who are in this country illegally. That is the bottom line. Every community realizes it.

I had the opportunity to go with Speaker Johnson to Eagle Pass. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, it was eye-opening. It was eye-opening because, as you know, right now, as we are standing here on the floor today, the Biden Department of Justice is literally suing the Texas Department of Public Safety because Texas actually wants to defend the border. Yes, you heard that right.

The President, who comes out of the meeting yesterday with the Speaker and the leaders over in the House and the Senate and says, oh, we have to do something about the border, yes, he is doing something about it. He sent his lawyers into court to actually tell the Texas department to stand down from defending our border. Those are the facts. I was there.

We got briefed by the directors of the Texas Department of Public Safety, who will tell you that, yes, in fact, they watched the Border Patrol--look, great men and women. They raised their hands and said they were going to obey what their orders were. They are functioning as social workers. That is it. They will tell you.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most revealing facts was the day when they had 6,000 people come to Eagle Pass. We stood in the facility. They will tell you that this facility was originally designed to process about 100 people a day, maybe 200.

It is not a permanent facility, by the way. It is a soft-sided facility. It is a tent. They had to do it that way because nobody could have projected that we were going to process thousands of people a day.

They said, well, we expanded it and can process about 1,000 people a day. What happens when 6,000 people cross the border, and this administration doesn't turn them back, doesn't have a return to Mexico policy?

By the way, just to review the geography, the day we were there, the people who were crossing the border, who were wading through the Rio Grande, were young Venezuelan men. Just to review the geography, I doubt they swam from Venezuela up the Rio Grande, which means they had to come by land and had to pass through all the countries of Central America and then Mexico to get to the United States.

They were claiming asylum, or they could have been paroled into the interior. I don't know. I don't know how Border Patrol handled them, but Border Patrol was not turning them back.

They will tell you that most of the people who come claim asylum. They said it was like 80 percent of the people are claiming asylum. They know the magic words to say. They come to the border and say that they face some kind of persecution and threats of violence in their country and are claiming asylum.

They will also tell you that a large number of those people are actually coming from Mexico. It is not the most now. Most are from Venezuela, but number two is Mexico.

Picture this, Mr. Speaker. We have a trade agreement with Mexico. We have a peaceful border with Mexico--at least with the Mexican Government, not with the cartels. Yet, we are accepting people who are telling us they have to be here on asylum from our neighboring ally, Mexico.

How ridiculous is that? There is no civil war going on in Mexico. There is none of that. Why in the world would we be taking asylum cases from Mexico?

The Texas border people said that the problem is that Border Patrol-- and confirmed by Border Patrol--are instructed to process these people into the interior.

Mr. Speaker, when those 6,000 people crossed the border, they took all the Border Patrol agents from 243 miles of border that the Eagle Pass-Del Rio sector is responsible for--they took them all into the 4 miles of that area around Eagle Pass, leaving 239 miles of Texas border wide open.

The administration will tell you all the fentanyl is crossing at the ports of entry. Really? On a day when 239 miles are unpatrolled, you think that a few pounds of fentanyl worth millions of dollars that could kill tens of millions of people--you think that they are going to risk taking it through a port of entry when the border is wide open? It is not believable.

This administration does not want to enforce the border. They don't care about 70,000 people dying from fentanyl every year and that number going up, not down.

We can't stand for it anymore. The gentleman from Arizona is absolutely right. Our lever is funding. We ought to take advantage of that.

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest threats to our national security is a woke military.

Nothing exemplifies a woke military as much as the National Defense Authorization Act that is going to come before this body out of a Conference Report that allows transgender surgery to continue to be funded in the U.S. military.

I can guarantee you that Russia and China aren't using their military dollars to pay for transgender surgery.

Here in the United States, we are, and we will. If this House and the Senate passes the Conference Report, that will be the official U.S. policy.

Madam Speaker, that is not defense of the Nation. That is a woke military that endangers our Nation's security.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer amendment No. 5 included in the en bloc, to increase our investment in the health workforce and to decrease spending for the Office of the Secretary of HHS, who has driven this historic health workforce shortage.

In December of 2020, Congress passed the No Surprises Act, which was the result of a yearslong effort to ban surprise medical bills in a way that both takes the patient out of the middle and sets up a fair process for the provider and payer to negotiate the resulting bill.

Unfortunately, the administration has implemented the policy in such a way that has tilted the scales in favor of the big insurance companies at every possible turn.

Historically, Medicare has reimbursed physicians for their services at a lower rate than private insurance, which is why many providers don't even accept Medicare. In fact, 42 percent of psychiatrists don't accept Medicare patients. Most providers rely on private insurance to keep their practices open.

Now, due to the botched implementation of the No Surprises Act, private insurance companies are paying the same or less than Medicare, which, as we unfortunately predicted, is forcing doctors to close their practices and decreases access to patient care.

Someone told me a long time ago, if you are losing money on every patient, you can't make up for it on volume. The fact of the matter is that the Secretary is not enforcing the No Surprises Act as written.

Once an out-of-network bill is generated, we set up a 30-30-30-day timeline. The doctor and insurance company have 30 days to agree on a payment amount, or else either side can initiate the arbitration process. The arbiter has 30 days to determine the appropriate payment, and then the insurance company has 30 days to pay the provider.

This timeline is simply not happening in a majority of cases. On average, it takes 236 days for a payment dispute to be resolved and paid. A recent survey found that after arbitration, 52 percent of the insurance companies aren't making payments at all.

Unfortunately, the Secretary has implemented this policy poorly and without serious enforcement. As a result, doctors are leaving the workforce in droves. Forcing doctors to provide care for which they may never receive payment is unsustainable.

Because the Secretary is perpetuating the healthcare workforce shortage, this amendment would decrease the Office of the Secretary of HHS and increase the top line of the HRSA Health Workforce accounts.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, which would penalize the Secretary for driving the health workforce shortage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase funding for Project BioShield from $820 million to $870 million, with the funds coming from taking money from the recurring expense fund for buildings and facilities at HHS.

Mr. Chairman, medical countermeasures are important. We know that the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats are real in this world and that there is no natural market incentive for private industry to invest in developing countermeasures despite their critical importance to national security. That is exactly why Congress authorized Project BioShield almost 20 years ago, in 2004, which incentivizes industry to invest in these products despite the fact that there is no natural market incentive.

The program provides multiyear funding to support advanced research, clinical development, manufacturing, and procurement. BioShield responds to national security threats identified by the Department of Homeland Security's material threat determination process.

According to the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, or PHEMCE, their multiyear budget, BARDA's Project BioShield would need $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2024 to develop and support the candidates in the smallpox, radiological, nuclear, broad- spectrum antimicrobials, Ebola, and chemical countermeasure portfolios. That is in contrast to the $820 million that is in the underlying bill. Again, the experts have said we need $1.7 billion.

Additionally, last year, the House included report language in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus that asked BARDA to compile a procurement strategy for novel antimicrobials. BARDA then included this objective in their 5-year strategic plan, but it was, of course, way underfunded. This amendment would allow them to move forward with these activities to provide additional funding, which could be used for the procurement of new antimicrobials.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, which would increase funding for Project BioShield to $870 million, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, to pay for this, we take money from the NIH buildings and facilities. That is true. However, Mr. Chairman, you know that the way CBO works is that we had to take it from that fund because we expect that money to be replaced from the nonrecurring expense fund at HHS. The CBO won't score it as a savings, but they will score it as a savings if you take it from NIH.

Mr. Chair, I get it. Nobody understands how CBO works. It makes no sense. Nevertheless, that money could be backfilled easily because, Mr. Chair, that nonrecurring expense fund at HHS is a slush fund with $1.8 billion in it unspent with moneys each year authorized in the bills to be rolled over to the next year, so there is $1.8 billion sitting at

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

Mr. Chair, the dangers in the world are immense. China and North Korea both, obviously, are nuclear and nonconventional weapons threats. We are looking at a war in Israel right now with the possibility that Iran could make a dirty bomb. There are nuclear threats. We need countermeasures. We need to spend money on countermeasures.

Just as we are spending $880 billion on what I call kinetic defense, we need to spend money on nonkinetic defense. One of the things we need to do is fund Project BioShield because that is where we develop these countermeasures.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. It would take $59 million that HHS would transfer out of a $1.8 billion fund that they have unspent and use that money for countermeasures.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the last one. It takes money from the NIH buildings and facilities funds, which, under authorization of law, can be transferred back from HHS' nonrecurring expense fund and transfers $100 million of that to the Strategic National Stockpile.

The Strategic National Stockpile is the only program dedicated to having civilian medical countermeasures on hand to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats that may occur on U.S. soil.

From what we are seeing in Israel now to the current Marburg virus outbreak in Equatorial Guinea, these threats are real and growing.

Again, according to the PHEMCE multiyear budget, in fiscal year 2024, the stockpile would need $1.96 billion, almost $2 billion, to meet current stockpiling needs. Yet, in the bill is less than $1 billion.

The sharp increase that they feel is necessary--again, these are the experts in these countermeasures--is largely due to needed investment in the anthrax, Ebola, and smallpox portfolios. When we underfund that stockpile, then risky decisions have to be made. A prior annual review proposed reducing anthrax vaccine and antibiotic holdings. This amendment provides funds that will help meet the goals that have been identified by these experts.

I appreciate the Appropriations Committee including my requested report language directing the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Readiness in coordination with the intelligence community to provide annual classified threat briefings to Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this amendment, which is vital to our national security, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut when she said we need to fund the SNS. That is the bottom line. Mr. Chair, you read the Constitution like I read it. National Defense is one of the things outlined for Congress in the Constitution.

We don't have adequate defense stockpiles in the Strategic National Stockpile.

Let's talk smallpox, for example. We had 200 million doses back in 2018. A lot of those have expired. The bottom line is that anthrax has a 30 percent mortality rate. We need a vaccine for every American, everyone living in the United States.

It is that simple, because anthrax, Mr. Chair, is not something you have to develop in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. God knows they can develop dangerous weaponry. It can be stolen from somewhere and duplicated. It doesn't take a First World country to be an anthrax threat.

Now with regard to the buildings at NIH, as I explained before, Mr. Chair, there is a $1.8 billion building slush fund over at HHS. They have accumulated $1.8 billion in what they call their nonrecurring expense fund.

Mr. Chair, I will remind you, because of Bidenomics and a 5 percent interest rate, that is $90 million a year we are paying on interest on their slush fund.

Mr. Chair, what I am proposing is we take the money out of NIH--and I will join with the gentlewoman from Connecticut in writing a letter to Secretary Becerra asking him to backfill that money from his slush fund.

Enough with slush funds--$22 billion in Commerce, the Commodity Credit Corp, in USDA; $1.8 billion slush fund, nonrecurring expense fund in HHS.

Mr. Chair, we can't afford it. We also can't afford to be without a Strategic National Stockpile. We need to make sure that we have the antimicrobials, that we have the vaccines in there that are necessary to protect against the next threat from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6363, a bill that would keep the government operating

while putting Congress on a path toward fiscal responsibility. We simply can't continue to pass large, bloated omnibus appropriations bills just before Christmas, and this bill is a new approach to break the cycle.

Moody's changed the outlook of the Nation's debt on Friday to negative. Rising interest rates from Bidenomics, the sharp increase in public debt, and a lack of agreement on measures to reduce the public deficit led to that downgrade.

This should be a wake-up call for all of us. This bill gives us time to complete our work in a fiscally responsible manner while working toward a more normal appropriations process.

Additionally, I would specifically address concerns for funding of the WIC program. I have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle use scare tactics and a straw man that this bill does not provide enough funding for WIC and the States will have to have a wait list for participants. Nothing could be further from the absolute truth.

Let me remind everyone that provisions in the first CR continue in this bill, so the Department of Agriculture has the authority to maintain WIC participation, period.

If States need more money, they should ask USDA for funding, not start wait lists. USDA and OMB have the authority to work together to fully fund the program, and if they don't, it is 100 percent the fault of the Biden administration.

It is shameful that advocacy groups and the Biden administration's team use such scare tactics when they know full well they have the ability to fully fund WIC for the duration of this continuing resolution.

I thank Speaker Johnson for his leadership in restoring fiscal restraint and supporting a new approach to control spending.

I also thank Chairwoman Granger for her leadership and dedication in moving the FY24 House appropriations bills forward. The world has taken notice of the unsustainable spending and debt which undermines our credibility as a world leader.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6363 to put us on the path to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) for receiving its highest ranking for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) according to U.S. News & World Report.

Under the leadership of UMES President, Dr. Heidi M. Anderson, U.S. News ranked UMES in the top 6 of public HBCUs, number 200 among all public colleges and universities, and number 14 among 78 HBCUs in their 2023-2024 report. UMES ranked two spots higher than last year's report and is the university highest ranking since U.S. News created its HBCU category in 2007.

As the representative of Maryland's Eastern Shore, it is my distinct honor to recognize UMES for its remarkable achievement and I look forward to seeing the university continue to shape the minds of our Nation's future. Congratulations to UMES and Go Hawks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4368, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to bring before the House H.R. 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024 appropriations bill.

I thank Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Granger and commend her for her leadership in moving this bill and the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process forward.

I also recognize the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee (Ms. DeLauro), and the ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (Mr. Bishop).

I appreciate the conversations he and I have had regarding the bill. While I know we don't agree on everything, we have reached areas of consensus that will keep our ag communities strong.

As Americans know all too well, our country continues to battle high inflation driven by the overspending of the last Congress and the Biden administration.

The fiscal situation in the United States, in fact, has changed since the Appropriations Committee passed this bill in June.

While we were on the August recess, the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit to reach $2 trillion for this fiscal year, doubling last year's deficit of $1 trillion, and the deficit outlook for the future has gotten much worse.

We simply cannot continue down this path of spending large sums of money without regard to the fiscal future of our Nation.

This bill takes the same approach American families take every day. They simply have to do more with less under the Biden economy.

American families decide every single day where to cut back spending to pay for what is most important for them. For them, those decisions are difficult.

Likewise, we have to make tough, difficult decisions for the good of the Nation. This is why the rule implements further reductions totaling $2.7 billion across the discretionary accounts in this bill, except for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children, or WIC.

With this reduction, the fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriation bill's discretionary allocation is $15.1 billion.

By redirecting nearly $7.5 billion in unobligated funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, this bill funds the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with an effective program level of $22.5 billion--a decrease of 12.8 percent from the current fiscal year.

This legislation prioritizes critical ag research and plant and animal health programs, invests in our rural communities, provides nutrition assistance to those in need, and ensures that American consumers have a safe food and drug supply.

This legislation rejects the Biden administration's unrealistic proposed spending levels that disregard the dire fiscal reality our country faces.

It also rejects the administration's continued push to bloat inside the beltway Federal bureaucracy by halting new hires in the Washington, D.C., office; instead, focusing on hiring an increased USDA workforce outside of the Capital Beltway in the offices that directly serve and support rural America.

I will highlight a few areas where this legislation prioritizes essential functions while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.

In regard to supporting the core mission, the bill provides $1 billion for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to support the Department's efforts to protect our producers from foreign plant and animal diseases.

The bill continues to invest in the delivery of farm programs, disaster assistance, and crop insurance to farmers and ranchers by maintaining funding for the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency.

The bill provides $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to fund our Nation's frontline inspectors of meat and poultry products.

We also continue to make important investments in critical agriculture research that will keep our producers on the cutting edge of technology and production practices.

We continue to fund rural development programs, including critical infrastructure investments in water and wastewater systems, broadband, and rural housing programs.

For the Food and Drug Administration, the bill provides just over $6 billion in direct appropriations and user fees to enable the agency to keep food, drugs, and medical devices safe and effective.

The bill includes $296 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to continue to oversee and ensure the integrity of U.S. derivative markets.

With regards to fiscal responsibility, at the same time, this legislation reins in some of the administration's wasteful, out-of- control spending.

For instance, it removes the Secretary's discretionary use of the Commodity Credit Corporation to fund unauthorized, nonemergency programs by returning statutory language to its pre-COVID language that didn't have that discretionary authority.

The CCC is not intended to allow USDA to completely bypass Congress in establishing new programs. Yet, the USDA apparently just can't help themselves, and that is exactly what they have been doing with the Commodity Credit Corporation.

According to a recent article in AgriPost, the USDA intends to use the Commodity Credit Corporation to spend nearly $1.4 billion on trade programs and another $1.1 billion to pay for ``commodity-based international food aid.'' That sounds a lot like the Food for Peace program.

Since the USDA has provided $1.1 billion for food aid that will be distributed during fiscal year 2024, the rule amendment reduces Food for Peace to $532 million.

This bill will put an end to the habitual abuse of the CCC. In doing so, the bill saves $1 billion in fiscal year 2024 alone.

Given that the USDA used these discretionary powers to spend another $2.5 billion and $6.6 billion in the last 2 fiscal years, respectively, I would submit to my colleagues that the real savings to taxpayers of taking these discretionary authorities away will be much higher than the CBO score.

Mr. Chair, that is exactly what we need in times of the fiscal crisis we are in. Let me be clear: Restricting these authorities in the CCC will have no impact on farm bill and conservation programs, crop insurance, or the Secretary's ability to access the CCC in an animal or plant health emergency, the uses for which the program was created, not as a de facto slush fund for the department. All of those important duties and functions will continue under this bill.

This legislation also rescinds wasteful spending from the Inflation Reduction Act. It is finally time to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars by rescinding these new government giveaways.

We must work to rightsize programs, especially since the pandemic is over and President Biden ended the public health emergency in May.

It, in fact, is time to return to pre-COVID spending levels. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we can return to pre-COVID inflationary levels, too, which I am sure the American public would, indeed, welcome.

Well, this is why we are returning the WIC cash value voucher benefits to a normal, sustainable inflation-adjusted funding level.

The American Rescue Plan provided a one-time increase in these benefits due to the pandemic, but these increases continue to be built into the WIC program in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 after they were due to expire. Keeping these increases on autopilot adds an additional $1 billion to the program.

This bill does provide cash value vouchers above prepandemic levels to help with the food price inflation caused by the Biden economy. With the end of the public health emergency, it is time to return this program to normal pre-COVID operations.

On the regulatory front, this legislation puts a stop to USDA's efforts under the Packers and Stockyards Act to dictate how poultry and livestock producers raise and market their animals.

This bill also prevents the purchase of farmland by our foreign adversaries, while providing funds for the Farm Service Agency to fulfill its duty to track foreign ownership of land.

The bill also returns the use of mifepristone to in-person dispensing by a healthcare provider. This is a drug that should not be used without the supervision of a physician or a similarly licensed provider.

Anyone who truly cares, who genuinely cares about women's health and safety, should support this commonsense provision.

Finally, as I said earlier, this bill takes the same approach American families take every single day now. They have to do more with less under the Biden inflation economy. American families decide every day where to cut back spending to pay for what is most important.

We are not appropriating monopoly money, Mr. Chair. It is hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and sometimes tough decisions have to be made, and this bill makes them.

In closing, I ask for your support for this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what is really harmful is a $2 trillion deficit, not the legislation before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

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

I remind Americans, if they are watching, that we are not dealing with Monopoly money.

Where are the ideas to solve a $2 trillion budget deficit?

The President didn't have any. In fact, the President submitted a budget to Congress that never ever balanced and was supposed to have $1 trillion deficits, but in fact, we had overspending in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which is one of the biggest misnomers we ever had in the history of Congress.

The American people know, when you increase spending by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, you increase inflation. You don't reduce it, you increase it. The fact of the matter is, our deficit is now $2 trillion, not $1 trillion.

Mr. Chair, I am hoping to hear from the other side of the aisle: How do we pay for all of this?

We have to borrow every single penny of this bill, and it has to be paid back by our children, our great-grandchildren--those are the facts. I know the facts are disturbing, but we have a $2 trillion deficit, and it is the House Republicans who are taking the responsible position in Washington and dealing with it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is only in Washington that this can happen. Last year's bill, from the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority, funded WIC at $6.0 billion. This year's bill in front of us funds WIC at $6.0 billion. That is a slash, if you listen to the other side of the aisle.

The average American is going: What? Wait a minute. We are funding it at exactly the same level as last year and they are accusing us of taking food out of the mouths of women, infants, and children.

This is the same level they did last year. That is what the American people can't stand about Washington. The average American understands that $6.0 billion last year is the same as $6.0 billion this year.

All they see is a partisan struggle going on. They don't see Americans and the House of Representatives wanting to solve their problems.

The price of food in the grocery store, the price of gas, the price of everything, the inflation, they don't want to solve the problem at the southern border. What they want to do is accuse us of slashing things when we fund it at exactly the same level.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I guess we are just going to have to be fact-checking all night long. Once again, the gentlewoman said that we are slashing $800 million from the WIC program.

Now, maybe this is new math. Maybe this is why our public schools are failing our children, but $6.0 billion this year, our amount, is exactly the same as the $6.0 billion last year--6.0 minus 6.0, for those of you watching on TV, take note, is exactly the same. It is not $800 million less.

Now, I think I heard that we are taking this down to FY 2000 funding levels. Well, that is interesting because we just looked up the FY 2000 funding levels, and the ag bill was funded at $14 billion. We are funding it at $25 billion. Now, again, this might be new math, 14 might be more than 25, maybe in some alternate universe. That is the way this government functions. It is in an alternate universe. It doesn't understand what every American family knows: Inflation is what our problem is. Inflation is driven by out-of-control government spending, by a $2 trillion deficit, and then we are accused of cutting spending to the FY 2000 levels. Again, for those who weren't paying attention the first time, FY 2000, look it up. It is easy. Google it--$14 billion. Our bill, $25 billion.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to fact check myself. Our budget, the bill that is coming to the floor is $22.5 billion, not $25 billion, but that is still a whole lot more than $14 billion.

The toxic hazard is not this bill. Rather, it is a $2 trillion deficit and an open southern border. That is what the toxic hazard is, and we are not discussing that in Washington. We should be discussing it in Washington.

Mr. Chair, I just have a question. Aren't the remarks supposed to be directed to the chair, the speaker's comments?

Okay. I thought so. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I guess it is fact-check time again for the American people. FY 2000 was $14 billion. I think I demonstrated that 22.5 is more than 14. The gentleman says we are cutting it to FY 2001 levels. Well, Mr. Chair, that was $15 billion. Again, it might be new math, but when I went to school, I was taught that 15 was less than 22.5. No matter how many times you say it on the floor of this House, we are not cutting spending to FY 2001 levels. We are cutting them to pre-COVID levels because, Mr. Chair, the pandemic is over.

The free-wheeling spending during the pandemic has to end. A $2 trillion deficit and an open southern border are existential threats to this country, and the Republican House majority is dealing with it.

Mr. Chair, I remind the body that the Senate is not controlled by Republicans, and they haven't passed a single appropriations bill to the floor. Now, we only passed one, but, again, when I went to school, one was more than none.

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

Mr. Chair, first, it was that we are cutting it to FY 2000 levels, then it was 2001 levels. Now, they raised the ante. It is FY 2003 levels. The FY 2003 funding level in this bill was $17.55 billion. I will remind all the Americans watching that 17.5 is less than 22.5. In fact, we are $5 billion above that.

We are not cutting spending to FY 2003 levels. Now, maybe the next speaker will suggest 2005, 2007. If they get to FY 2019, pre-COVID, yes, we are.

The floor leader on the other side of the aisle said Republicans talk of everything going up. Mr. Chair, if that were true, if it were only Republicans that talk of everything going up, we would be getting 95 percent of the vote in America because everybody is talking about everything going up. You can't go anywhere without someone saying they have to pay $4.80 a gallon for diesel, or they have to pay so much for milk, pay $2 for a loaf of bread that they used to pay $1.20 for.

It is not Republicans talking about that. We are just listening to what Americans say. That is why we are returning spending to the pre- COVID levels.

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

Mr. Chair, the Republicans were sent back to the majority this term of Congress to get things in order in Washington.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriations bill, which returns to pre-COVID spending levels and starts us on a path to decreasing our Federal spending and decreasing inflation. That is what the American people want.

This legislation does prioritize critical programs that support our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

The bill importantly reins in Federal spending and regulatory overreach as well as includes a number of conservative policy victories to stop the Biden administration's woke agenda.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of this amendment. This is the bipartisan amendment, which includes priorities for Members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate Ranking Member Bishop working with us on this amendment and ask for your support.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman, because the gentleman brings an amendment to the floor that does something with the $2 trillion budget deficit. He is right, we have a $33 trillion debt. Our interest payments in a few years are going to be over $1 trillion-- more than Social Security, more than Medicare, more than Medicaid, more than food stamps, more than all of them.

One fact check before I sit down. Now we heard it was FY 2007, so I guess the

speechwriters can't make up their minds. Is it FY 2000, 2001, 2003? Now it is 2007.

I would remind the Chair, the spending level in the 2007 bill was $17.8 billion, and that is almost $5 billion less than what we appropriate in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for coming to the floor with a specific idea of how we stop the out-of- control Federal spending leading to a $2 trillion deficit and runaway inflation. That is the bottom line.

There are plenty of ideas on how to spend more money, believe you me. There are plenty of ideas circulating around Washington. What we need are ideas on how to cut spending.

Mr. Chair, I suggest that going after parts of the Federal Government that encourage high-cost energy, because that is what renewable energy is, it is all high cost. That is the fact of the matter.

If we want to create low-cost energy, Mr. Chair, you know what we have to do, we have to extract our natural gas and burn our natural gas and then we can compete with China for the cost of energy.

All that we are doing with programs like this that fund renewable energy is yielding unilateral disarmament to China on energy, and it doesn't belong in the agriculture department.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the Member from Florida for bringing a concrete idea to the floor on how to cut our $2 trillion Federal deficit.

Once again, it is very easy to spend money. We could make a list of a thousand programs that are deserving programs, but the fact of the matter is we have to borrow every single cent to fund the programs in this agriculture bill, and our grandchildren have to pay it back. That is immoral.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time.

This is a commonsense amendment. The bottom line is it is a myth to say that electric vehicles produce no CO2. Where do you think the electricity comes from when you plug it into the outlet? Most electricity in the United States is producing CO2.

Secondly, why would we want the Federal Government to buy a vehicle, an expensive vehicle, that people don't even buy for themselves?

We should run the Federal Government much more efficiently. These are not the most efficient purchases to make. We have a $2 trillion deficit.

Madam Chair, the Thrifty Food Plan, this is the official political appointee who decided that the SNAP benefits weren't high enough, so they devised a new food plan that was used as a vehicle to just increase the SNAP benefits.

The bottom line is we are spending over $100 billion a year. We have a $2 trillion deficit. We should reevaluate that increase in the Thrifty Food Plan that has resulted in a double-digit increase in SNAP benefits.

What this amendment does is sends a clear signal to the administration that this probably wasn't a well-thought-out idea.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for offering this amendment.

There is one thing the Federal Government should not do when it has a $2 trillion deficit, and that is do duplicative things in one department.

There already is an Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There is no need for an Equity Commission. Oh, but that is right, we have got to get the word ``equity'' in there somewhere.

I suggest maybe we should go back and just rename the Office of Civil Rights. It is cheaper, and with a $2 trillion deficit, that is probably what we ought to do.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for offering the amendment.

It turns out in the wisdom of the committee we have already defunded the Civilian Climate Corps, but belts and suspenders is fine, I have no problem with that, because good-paying

jobs shouldn't come from the government, they should come in the private sector. That is why we don't need the Civilian Climate Corps. Oh, that is right, it has the word ``climate'' in it, so you have to create something in the Department with the word ``climate'' and with the word ``equity'' and with the words ``diversity'' and ``inclusion''--the whole thing. We don't need it.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for putting forth this amendment. It is common sense. Able-bodied people ought to work. That is the bottom line.

There are two things about this program. One is that my colleague on the other side of the aisle says you never know, the economy could get bad. Now, this is only a 1-year amendment. We are only discussing the next fiscal year.

The President has said this is a great economy. I don't know what we are worried about. The President has said this economy is great. So don't worry about this amendment. It shouldn't be a problem.

The other thing is that this is one of the greatest State scams in the country right now. States vie with each other as to who can get this waiver. Do you know what, Madam Chair? This is no cost to the State. We could solve this problem by just asking States to have a 20 percent copay.

Do you think food stamps are a great deal or SNAP is a great deal? Great. The Federal Government pays 80, you pay 20, just like Medicaid. That means States will have skin in the game, and they won't go for these scams.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for offering this amendment.

My colleague across the aisle read verbatim from an executive order to analyze the effect of climate on migration. What we need is an executive order to examine the effect of an open border on migration into the United States, the effect in the large cities--New York, Chicago--and bankrupting this country. That is the executive order we need from the President, not these.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this forth.

Mr. Chair, look, I urge everyone just to read the Fifth Circuit Court opinion. The fact of the matter is, the Fifth Circuit Court said the FDA way overstepped their congressional fencing in on how they have to approve drugs. The bottom line is, it is not us saying this. It is the Fifth Circuit.

Maybe this is one way to send a message that you actually ought to listen to the way Congress set up the safety and efficacy approval process. Maybe we need something like this so the FDA actually pays attention to how Congress told them they have to operate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 11 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shiela D. Corley for receiving a 2023 University of Kentucky Alumni Association Distinguished Service Award. This prestigious award is presented to those who have provided extraordinary leadership, dedication, and have a history of diligently serving the UK alumni and community.

Shiela grew up on a farm in the small town of Greenville, Kentucky. She followed her dream of attending the University of Kentucky, where she received both her bachelor's and master's degrees. After graduate school, Shiela began her career with the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a dedicated public servant with the National Agricultural Statistics Service and later the Food and Nutrition Service. I am pleased that she is currently serving on a detail assignment from USDA to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, of which I chair.

While living in Washington, D.C., Shiela has been an active member of the University of Kentucky's Nation's Capital Alumni Club, serving as vice president from 2004 through 2009. She currently serves on UK's Alumni Leadership Advisory Council and is active in the Washington, D.C. community as a member of the Junior League and other non-profits, including the Kentucky Society of Washington.

In 2017, Shiela and her family established the Corley Family Endowment in memory of her sister Shannon, who was also a UK alum and avid Wildcat fan alongside Shiela. The endowment provides support to a member of their hometown community to attend the University of Kentucky. To date, they have awarded five scholarships, with the first recipient graduating this past May. Through this endowment, Shiela and her family help others realize their dream of attending the University of Kentucky while also memorializing and celebrating the life and Wildcat spirit of Shannon.

It is my distinct honor to recognize Shiela D. Corley for her outstanding servant leadership to the University of Kentucky, USDA, and as part of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee team.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Arizona has it absolutely right. When I was in the military as a physician, what you wanted when you were injured in battle, Mr. Chair, was the best person taking care of you with the greatest skill. You didn't care what the color of their skin was. You didn't care what their religion was. You didn't care what their background was. You wanted a highly trained individual who was going to keep our fighting force healthy.

Mr. Chair, that is why we need this amendment, to protect our men and women serving this country. This has nothing to do with other amendments. It is about having a fighting force that is the best in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Republicans who want to defund veterans. It is the Democrats.

We have marked up the MILCON-VA bill in subcommittee, and it doesn't have cuts. I don't know where the people on the other side of the aisle suggest we are not supporting veterans. As a veteran myself, I am proud of the work we do.

It is the President who suggested that we decrease from the fiscal year 2023 numbers across the board. Mr. Speaker, that is defense, veterans. That is across the board.

It is the President who wants to cut the defense budget. It is the President who wants to defund our veterans. Shame on the President.

Mr. Speaker, I will take a few moments today to honor the memory of Wicomico County Sheriff Deputy Glenn Hilliard, a brave Eastern Shore police officer who was killed in the line of duty while trying to arrest a wanted criminal on probation.

Officer Glenn Hilliard lived his life as a devoted husband, father, and police officer who was commonly referred to as a hero by his fellow officers on the police force.

On June 12, 2022, just a little under a year ago, Officer Hilliard was shot and killed by a fugitive who had committed multiple felonies and was running from justice.

As we honor National Police Week, both Glenn Hilliard's life and death are a testament to why we should support and fully fund police officers as they risk their lives daily to keep us safe.

Officer Glenn Hilliard served Wicomico County with honor, valor, and distinction. In the end, Officer Hilliard's memory is most treasured not by how he died but by how he lived as a selfless and heroic police officer who put the safety of his community above his own.

Mr. Speaker, fiscal sanity has returned to Washington, D.C. I didn't think I was going to live long enough to see this, but today, minutes ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act.

We agreed with the majority of the American public that inflation is tied to runaway Federal Government spending and that it is about time the President realized that his fairyland budget that never, ever, ever balances is actually bad for America.

Maybe this will bring him to the negotiating table so that when we raise the credit limit on America on our American credit card, we actually do what we would do in our own households--we would actually begin to control spending. That is a huge step. It is about time it is happening in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not too late.

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