Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the ongoing efforts of the Wintergreen community to build an emergency exit road to keep their residents safe.

The Wintergreen community is located within the Blue Ridge National Park in Nelson County, Virginia, and is home to up to 10,000 residents at any given time. It is situated in a box canyon, but it only has one road that leads in or out.

For 20 years, the community has tried to work with the Park Service to construct an emergency exit but has been denied every time. The community is trying to fund and create a 400-foot emergency exit road to the Blue Ridge Parkway, which would be critical to saving lives in the event of a fire.

The Park Service continues to insist they do not have the authority to approve this action, so to remedy the situation, I am introducing the Blue Ridge Fire Safety Act to make it clear that the Park Service does have the authority to grant an emergency road construction permit.

Madam Speaker, I hope that common sense will prevail and prioritize the safety of this community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 98, a resolution brought under the Congressional Review Act that will nullify the new joint employer rule finalized by the Biden administration's activist National Labor Relations Board.

The joint employer rule is a continuation of anti-employer, antiworker, pro-union activism spewing out of Biden's NLRB.

Originally created as a neutral Federal agency to safeguard employee rights, the NLRB has destroyed its reputation under the leadership of radical leftist General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo.

If we fail to pass the resolution today and this new rule goes into effect, it will rescind the direct and immediate control standard and replace it with the Biden administration's indirect, reserved control standard.

These rules go to the heart of what it means to control your own business. The Biden administration threatens the existence of the franchise model used by so many great businesses across our Nation.

Years ago, when President Obama's NLRB tried to advance a similar rule, the International Franchise Association conducted a study on its impact. Research showed the Obama standard would have increased operational costs for franchisees collectively by as much as $33 billion annually and led to the loss of 376,000 jobs.

Under the rule, something as simple as a franchisor giving a franchisee a company handbook could be interpreted as exercising indirect control, and this opens up a floodgate of questions and unnecessarily creates a problem for the current structure.

Today, businesses are fighting to survive the consequences of Bidenomics. They are suffering high inflation, low workforce participation, high interest rates, and more. If you ask any franchisor, the last thing they would say they need is more government bureaucrats telling them how to run their businesses.

We must protect the model that is currently working for businesses and eliminate the threat of this new rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.J. Res. 98.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona regarding an illustration relative to the CBP One app.

Think about this, Mr. Speaker. If this Biden Federal Government was the local police and home burglaries were up, you have got rising crime, home burglaries, which are up under the Biden administration. In this case, if there were too many break-ins into homes across the country, their solution would be for the police to schedule the break-in with the criminals, meet them at the house, and let them in?

That is essentially what they are doing. These illegals are coordinating with the government to schedule their illegal entry into our country, and they count that differently within their numbers than if they just go to the border on their own with the criminal cartels instead of scheduling it with our own Department of so-called Homeland Security.

It is not any way to live. I have heard our Speaker say and members of our Conference echo him when he says that the border is the hill to die on, that the border is the fight to have.

My question to them is: What does that mean? When members of leadership or members of our Conference say the border is the hill to die on, what do they mean by that? What are they prepared to do?

This was my sixth trip in my 3 years in Congress. The first one was led by our friend from Arizona, and this most recent one was also led by Mr. Biggs from Arizona.

What struck me about this time was even though they knew we were coming--they knew at least a larger contingent was coming the next day. We got there a little earlier the day before, as you know, Tuesday night last week before the main deal on Wednesday.

I have never seen the brazen, bold amount of flow that we observed, dozens at a time while we were there.

In my previous experience, we were talking to ranchers, local law enforcement, National Guard, Border Patrol, and residents who live on the border, but we looked a little bit official. We have these Border Patrol guides, some friends guiding us and so forth, so it is pretty sparse. Not this time. They were coming across right in front of us by the dozens, most of them military-age males, single males, coming across themselves, not concerned.

They are looking for Border Patrol personnel to surrender to, to get the free travel, the free housing, the free healthcare, the free social services, the free education if there are children involved, and to be taken up and taken care of at taxpayer expense.

However, as we talked to the chief of that sector that we were at, the Del Rio sector, this past week, he told us that of the 240 miles there that they were responsible for, only about 4 miles had been patrolled during this recent period of time when there were thousands coming across because they were all so busy processing.

Out of 240. The sector chief that we met with told us 4 out of 240 miles had been secured or patrolled, I should say, during this period of time before we had gotten there because the Border Patrol agents were busy processing illegals into the country.

We talked to a judge, as Mr. Biggs mentioned, who said when she orders individuals detained, they are still released.

We talked to a senior DHS official who told us that they don't know where 75 percent of the people who they have released into the interior of the country have gone over these last 3 years.

They acknowledge that they have apprehended 8 million and released essentially 8 million. Last year, it was 3.2 million, and they only released, or returned, rather, 140,000.

Mr. Speaker, 3 million last year released in the country, and they don't know where 75 percent of them are because, as Mr. Biggs says, they get a piece of paper saying they have a notice to appear at a court date in the future.

We will get in touch with you if we can find you and tell you when that court date is a few years down the road.

They catch 100 on the terrorist watch list from the dumb ones who surrender to the Border Patrol and who don't think they are going to get caught because we are so generous and do so little vetting at the border. They still caught 100 among the 8 million who come and surrender to Border Patrol.

How troubling is it that there are an estimated 2 million, at least, got-aways, the ones who don't surrender because they are trafficking the women and children. They are trafficking fentanyl and other harmful drugs. They recognize the terrorist ties and the criminal backgrounds. They don't surrender.

There are an estimated 2 million. How many dangerous individuals might be among that 2 million? What percentage do you think it might be? Ten percent? So 90 percent are confused and don't know about all the free stuff? They don't know to use the CBP app? They don't know to surrender to Border Patrol to get all the free stuff? If only 10 percent of them are bad guys, that would be 200,000. About 2,000 people perpetrated the Hamas attack in Israel.

When we have let individuals in this country from 170 different countries. They are coming from China, Russia, the Middle East, hostile nations. We don't even know where they are coming from.

That is on top of the same administration, by the way, that brought 200,000 people here from Afghanistan in 2 weeks and didn't vet them either. Most of them were military-age males. They claim they were doing it to bring our interpreters and our translators.

I know General Perry served in the military and wore the uniform, and our friend who has joined us here, Mr. Crane, served in the military and wore the uniform as a Navy SEAL.

I went to Fort Pickett to visit those Afghanis in my district after they had brought several thousand there to house them. I took a Marine veteran who works in my district office. We went together to visit that fort. We did the official tour first.

They told us we couldn't come. By the way, they allowed a colleague of mine from the Virginia delegation--they allowed her to come from the neighboring district, but they didn't want me to come. She gave a very different report than I did, by the way.

We said we are coming anyway. We had DHS and military personnel show us around. After we were done, we did our own wandering around. We went and talked to the Afghanis who were there. I remind you that these are the translators and interpreters. Guess how many of them spoke English? About 1 out of 10.

They finally acknowledged they didn't vet those people, and they don't know where they are. You wonder to what end and to what limit.

Why would our own President perpetrate this border invasion on purpose? Why would he do this? When in the history of our country has our own President done more to intentionally harm the United States than what this President has done? If he sealed the border today, irreparable harm has been done.

It was $1.6 trillion, later increased and scored up to $4.6 trillion. And the deal that we heard about announced over the weekend, the deal between Senate and House leadership is $1.66 trillion, $20 billion higher than what the current score is for the omnibus that we appropriately attacked, criticized, and fought against a year ago.

We are now being ask to vote for an increase in spending for the very policies that we campaign against, Mr. Crane, Mr. Biggs, that we run against, that we rail against, that are destroying the country, and the spending levels that are bankrupting our kids and our grandkids while this border invasion continues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Liberty Christian Academy Bulldogs for their monumental victory in the VHSL 3A State championship football game.

On December 9, the Lynchburg-based LCA Bulldogs defeated the Lafayette Rams 28-14 to finish their season with a perfect 14-0 record and earn their first VHSL State football title.

This was a history-making moment, coming 9 years after LCA filed an antitrust complaint against the VHSL, seeking to permit themselves and other private schools to join the league. The VHSL ultimately settled and agreed to allow any private school to apply for membership, providing a major victory for all student athletes in private schools across the Commonwealth.

Now, just 8 years after they began competing in the predominantly public school league, LCA reached the pinnacle with their State championship.

The LCA Bulldogs and Coach Frank Rocco have made their school, the Lynchburg community, and Virginia's Fifth District exceptionally proud.

I am honored to represent such a phenomenal group of student athletes in Congress, and I congratulate them on this incredible achievement.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Cloud from Texas, for holding this very important discussion here on the House floor because what we will be voting on tomorrow represents the very worst of Washington.

I was thankful that back in the summer, for the first time since I have been in Congress, I could vote for an NDAA after 2 years in the minority where the majority party under this President believes that the greatest threat to the military is climate and that the greatest threat to the military are conservative patriots, God forbid, Trump supporters in the military. That has been the focus of this administration as it relates to our military.

I voted four times against bad NDAAs that were focused on climate extremism; that were focused on forcing our military to convert to electric vehicles; that were focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion and CRT training in our academies; red flag for our military members; forcing our daughters to be drafted; focused on funding for abortion in the military; funding for transgender surgery.

This past summer, our Republican Conference passed a good NDAA that I was proud to vote for because it reversed those harmful policies. Then we were supposed to have a Conference Committee that would go and negotiate with the Senate. We are actually the stronger body with our majority than the Senate is because the Senate has to have 60 votes to pass legislation and, last time I checked, there is only 51 Democrats over there; however, in the House, we can pass whatever we want with a one-vote majority.

We should be the stronger party in negotiations, but that Conference Committee really never took place. Instead, a new NDAA was negotiated from what I call the four corners--the House Speaker, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader. They came up with a new NDAA that takes out all of the good things that we fought for; the policy wins in the NDAA we voted for last summer.

To make it worse, we are going to combine that with an extension of FISA, surveillance on U.S. citizens, trampling on our most precious constitutional freedoms in this country with no reforms.

Our friend, Andy Biggs, authors the bill out of Judiciary with help from individuals like Chip Roy, who is here with us tonight, and Warren Davidson. Instead of bringing that bill to the floor for a vote as an individual bill, instead we are going to take a FISA extension with no reforms--not fixing the constitutional issues, not protecting Americans from warrantless surveillance on them like they are foreign terrorists--and we are going to combine the two together in an effort to force passage on suspension of the rules, nonetheless, that some Members of this body might be afraid to vote against a bad FISA bill because they don't want to be accused of being against the military. The NDAA is a bad bill. Attaching it to FISA makes it that much worse. Every Republican should vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Cloud for holding this time of discussion tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for the time this morning.

I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 88, a resolution that will nullify President Biden's irresponsible student loan repayment plan.

It is no secret that President Biden wants to borrow and spend taxpayer dollars to force you and your children to pay for other people's education.

Earlier this year, Biden vetoed my bipartisan resolution that nullified his student loan transfer scheme.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court agreed with Congress that unilateral Federal spending for outright forgiveness by the President is unconstitutional.

However, the administration lost no time in devising yet another scheme to transfer loan debt to taxpayers, this time under the guise of repayment.

The Biden administration's new repayment scheme would permit even more graduates to contribute even less money to loan payments.

These borrowers, who voluntarily took taxpayer money, will contribute just 5 percent of their monthly income to the loan.

They can also be exempt from paying interest, and if enough time passes, the loan will be forgiven altogether or actually paid for by other Americans.

The Biden administration sells this scheme by promising it will reduce many borrowers' loan payments to zero. However, the American taxpayer will foot the bill.

I am reminded of October of 2020, the vote-buying scheme that was the previous student loan transfer scheme, transferring that debt to other Americans.

Policies like this undermine personal responsibility and teach a generation to have little regard for the value of money.

Thanks to Bidenflation, the dollar has far less buying power today than when he took office. Americans feel this at the grocery store, the gas pump, and when paying their rent and utility bills.

Yet, this new scheme means that at least $276 billion in loans paid out to students will never be returned to the Treasury as promised.

As he overspends by $200 billion a month and drives us to $34 trillion in debt, the President may personally be insulated from the impact of his reckless, wasteful borrowing and spending, but the American people are certainly suffering from his harmful policies.

Many of my constituents paid their way through college or didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it, and they should not have to cover Biden's $276 billion in student loans.

As Dr. Foxx said just a moment ago, my district also has an example. I have 293,000 individuals in my district who don't have a college degree, and they should not have to pay their share, $3,800 each, for this latest student loan transfer scheme by the President.

Over the last 3 years, our government has nearly destroyed the student loan system by freezing payments, promising forgiveness, and changing loan terms. It has to stop. Americans cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, we can help today by voting in favor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Amherst County teacher John ``Andrew'' Fister.

Mr. Fister was an exemplary educator who dedicated nearly 25 years of his life to teaching, training, and developing his students.

After teaching Bible, math, and German for 18 years in Ohio, he moved to Virginia to serve 3 years as an academic instructor, helping young adults enter the workforce.

In January of 2022, Mr. Fister joined Amherst County public schools as a math and German teacher. Despite his relatively short time there, he left an indelible impact on the student body.

Mr. Fister was loved by many students, even those not in his classes, and served as a mentor for many who walked those halls.

With a special gift working with students needing a second chance or just a little extra help, he taught them to believe in themselves and to work hard to achieve their dreams.

Mr. Fister's enthusiasm for life was contagious, and he meant so much to so many in the Amherst community.

Only 50 years old, his time on Earth was too short for those who loved him, but his personal testimony and the influence he had on others will live beyond his life here.

His family and those who knew him best are comforted by the knowledge that he is in Heaven with his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Mr. Chair, I support the DETERRENT Act, and I urge all Members to vote for this bill.

Education is a battleground for influence, and it seems that foreign countries understand this better than some Members of this Congress.

On our watch, the Federal Government doles out billions in taxpayer dollars to fund expensive degrees that empower an anti-American agenda while these woke universities secretly collect checks from hostile nations and watch their endowments grow and grow.

The DETERRENT Act would strengthen existing law, requiring colleges to publicly report gifts and contracts with foreign countries. Under the DETERRENT Act, this information would be publicly available on a searchable database because taxpayers, parents, and students deserve to see who is buying the opportunity to influence the next generation of Americans.

The DETERRENT Act would further expose disturbing data that has recently come to light. At least 200 American colleges declined to report a total of $13 billion in contributions from authoritarian countries like Qatar, China, and Saudi Arabia.

For some reason, the Biden administration has halted many of the existing investigations of reporting violations and has declined to enforce current law. Why would that be? Could it have something to do with the $14 million donated to the Penn Biden Center from unnamed contributors in China?

The Biden administration minimizes it, and universities try to hide it, but the American people are suffering the effects of foreign influence.

Just yesterday, in the Education and the Workforce Committee, the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT defended the influence Hamas has on our campuses and students across this country. The number one donor of these undisclosed funds, Qatar, is a country that says Israel alone is responsible for the attacks by Hamas and even houses an office for the Hamas leader in its capital city.

International partnerships can be beneficial for universities but should not come at the cost of our national security, intellectual property, academic freedom, or perpetuation of our American values.

Mr. Chair, I support passage of the DETERRENT Act to ensure greater transparency regarding who is funding our colleges and universities, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight, concerned about our country, and I am concerned about our willingness as Members of Congress to meet the moment, to stand in the gap, to validate the hope placed in us as the Republican majority, to stand in the gap and to meet the moment to deal with the great crisis, the threats facing our country.

I will begin by mentioning our national debt. The days of spending without consequence are over. We have 40-year-high inflation as a result of unprecedented, excessive, reckless spending. We are on track this year for a $2.5 trillion deficit. We are running a monthly deficit of about $200 billion a month.

We are suffering the consequences with 40-year high inflation and grocery prices where Thanksgiving dinner costs 40 percent more than it did when this President was sworn in 3 years ago. Gas prices are up, utility prices are up, housing prices are up, rent prices are up, and then you have got interest rates.

The American people are suffering further under 20-year high interest rates, interest rates that have been increased by the Fed in a futile attempt to try to combat inflation. Historically, you raise interest rates because you have a hot economy and you are trying to ward off inflation. In this case, the inflation has been caused by the unprecedented levels of spending, and then we have further exacerbated this, this administration, this Federal Reserve under this President, with interest rates that have put home prices out of reach for most Americans.

Now, we have got our credit being downgraded. Two credit rating agencies have downgraded our debt, which will further cause interest rates to go up and payments on our national debt to increase even more.

The snowball effect of $34 trillion in debt, record interest rates, a $200 billion monthly deficit, is taking its toll. With each passing day that we fail to deal with the greatest fiscal crisis in the history of the country, we deepen the pain and the suffering that is put upon the American people not only just today but in the future.

Meanwhile, how do we see Congress responding? Do we see a commitment here in this House to cut our spending, to deal with our discretionary spending, as we call it? Every dollar we spend in this House and in the Chamber next door, every dollar we spend for discretionary spending, everything that we vote on in spending, is borrowed. The total this year of discretionary spending is somewhere around $1.7 trillion. Again, with a $200 billion monthly deficit and $2.5 trillion worth of deficit for the 12-month period, all of the discretionary spending is essentially borrowed.

Are we going to meet the moment? Are we going to rise to the occasion as a Republican majority?

If not now, when?

When will we take this seriously? When will we be willing to do what the American people elected us to do?

If not now, when? If not us, who?

I am pleased to have with me my good friend, the courageous fiscal warrior from Arizona, Mr. Andy Biggs, and I would like to hear his thoughts on this national debt subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his bringing up the supplemental, because I want to give Speaker Johnson credit for what he did with that House supplemental.

The supplemental, the $106 billion package that was proposed by the President and the Senate majority leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate, represents everything that is wrong with Washington.

To the point, we are running a $200 billion deficit, and yet we have a supplemental, which again, as he said, means we don't pay for it. We add it on; we tack it on; we borrow more; let's borrow $106 billion. Virtually everyone in Congress, I think--certainly all Republicans and most Democrats--want to support one of our true allies on the global stage--one of our, I would submit, two or three allies at a minimum-- Israel, through the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas. We want to come to the aid of our friend and our genuine ally Israel and give them the help that they need, but Israel doesn't have $34 trillion in national debt. Israel is not running a $200 billion deficit. Israel is fiscally solvent. We are not. Even for something so worthy as this cause, we have a responsibility to pay for it, if we can, and we can.

Therefore, Speaker Johnson met the moment and said let's pay for it by taking some of the $80 billion that was allocated for the 87,000 IRS hirings in the inflation increase act last summer, let's cut $14 billion from there to pay for the $14 billion for Israel, and it passed on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber. Twelve Democrats voted for it.

Honestly, I thought, you know what? We are plowing new ground in the House. We are separating the Israel aid. We are not doing again that which is represented by what we typically do here in Washington, which is all that is wrong with Washington. We say, we are going to hijack or hold hostage our desire to support Israel. We can't give them that $14 billion unless you also give them the $92 billion that has nothing to do with Israel: $60 billion for Ukraine, as was said, humanitarian support for Hamas, and more money for Mayorkas to process illegals in the country more quickly and more deceptively, another ill-defined, disastrous humanitarian system. We are going to hold hostage $14 billion for Israel with the $92 billion we have got to choke down.

I thought when Speaker Johnson and this Republican majority rose to the occasion with the support of 12 Democrats, who courageously crossed the aisle and did the right thing, that the Senate would have to take it up, that they wouldn't hold up support for Israel on a bipartisan bill just because it was paid for and just because it was going to cut by $14 billion the $80 billion IRS expansion and just because it didn't include the $92 billion that didn't have anything to do with Israel.

I know my colleague joined me in calling upon the Speaker and calling upon our Republican majority to stand with our Speaker. He needs to know we have his back and we stand with him. We have passed Israel support out of this House. We are requiring it to be paid for because that is the responsible thing for our kids and our grandkids and for the American people. We are not going to take up any other supplemental that has support for Israel, and every supplemental must be paid for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) to hear some additional thoughts.

That you were responsible in helping to craft that bill--you and our friend Chip Roy.

Just in Portland?

I want to go back to what you were talking about in the supplemental, actually on the spending, as well as on the FISA reforms.

This is a town of power and persuasion of leverage. I'm not sure we effectively know how to use leverage when we have it. We are a town that does things--a body that only does things when we have to, when there is a deadline and when there is the pressure.

You talked about relieving the pressure on the FISA reforms because of

the approaching deadline, the expiration of the current authorization. Why would we be so fearful of that expiration to the extent that we are unwilling to force upon the Senate the reforms that we are trying to pass out of the Judiciary Committee? The Judiciary Committee voted 35-2 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis that would pass this body if we put it on the floor today.

The Senate apparently isn't so worried about the expiration that we think they will take up our bill and pass it. There we would relieve the pressure to reform FISA so it doesn't expire.

You can apply that to the debt situation. We did another continuing resolution where we extended the Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer policies and spending levels into mid-January and early February with the promise that we work on passing our remaining five bills.

I am sorry to say and disappointed to acknowledge, we have not had any demonstrated effort to bring those remaining five bills to the floor. We don't have the commitment to the top line total programmatic spending levels. Our commitment to cut spending, no matter how modest, to cut spending from a year ago. This is something Congress hasn't done--you know your history better than I do--in how many years, where they cut the spending year over year.

We relieve the pressure. And then instead of trying to work during the time that we have to pass these spending bills, we are not doing it as we approach January 19. I expect this body is going to go home next week and not report for nearly a month to work on the spending bills that, in theory, we are supposed to pass before January 19's expiration, this continuing resolution.

Where is our unified commitment?

We talk a lot about unity here. Unity requires a unified mission, a unified purpose, and a unified vision to accomplish what?

We could point to so many existential crises created by our friends on the other side, the Democratic majority when they had control, the Senate majority, and the White House. I think you might agree, the two most pressing are the two we mentioned tonight: the border and the spending.

What, in the words of one of my favorite movies, ``The Untouchables,'' Sean Connery saying, ``What are you prepared to do?''

What are we prepared to do to force a lawless administration to secure the border?

What are we prepared to do to deal with the unprecedented level of spending that is literally crushing us, creating the greatest fiscal crisis the country has every faced?

What are we prepared to do as a Republican majority to come together in a unified manner?

Why would we continue to fund our fiscal demise?

Why would we continue to fund an open border?

You know the border issue better than anybody. Some 8 million plus were helped across this border by this administration and this President's policies. Helped across.

There would be irreparable harm done if we secured the border today. There are some 2 million known got-aways. These are the ones who don't want all the free stuff and don't surrender to Border Patrol under the policies of this administration for free travel, free housing, free social services, free education, free--just about everything--benefits that the American people don't get as citizens.

These are the ones who don't surrender for that because they have criminal backgrounds and terrorist ties. We find 100 a year, the dumb terrorists who Border Patrol apprehends. There are 100 a year with terrorist ties. How many are among the 2 million?

If we sealed the border today, only time will tell on what scale the American people will suffer catastrophic harm because of this President's policies--far beyond what we have seen across the ocean with our friends in Israel. What are we prepared to do?

I thought you might.

You cannot overstate the harm being done and the damage to our country by this border invasion. It is a border invasion. As we have had hearings on this issue in the Budget Committee or in the Education and the Workforce Committee, my friends across the aisle don't like that I call it a border invasion.

Mind you, they don't care about the border invasion. They just don't like me to call it a border invasion. This is on purpose. This is intentional. Every resource and every effort directed to the border over these past 3 years from this administration has been with the intent to get as many illegals, as quickly as possible and as successfully as possible, into the country.

To your point, why would we continue to fund and give billions of dollars a month--hundreds of billions of dollars a month to a lawless administration that is perpetrating this kind of harm on the country?

I would submit that never in the history of the country has our own President done more to intentionally harm the United States than what is happening with this border.

I will say it again. Never in the history of the country has our own President done more to intentionally harm the United States than what this President has done with the border. Give me an example of something that comes close.

The American people are counting on us. They gave us the majority a year ago because we ran on fiscal responsibility. We have not met that responsibility. We ran on securing the border, yet we continue to maintain the spending levels and policies with continuing resolutions and extensions that don't deliver for the American people.

They are trusting us, and they are putting their faith in us to stand in the gap to be that one barrier to the policies under which they are suffering and that are destroying the America that we know and love.

I am proud to serve with the gentleman from Arizona and many of my colleagues here in Congress who are ready to do what needs to be done, to make the tough choices, to cast the tough votes, and to honor the trust and faith that the American people placed in us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of the Liberty University Football Team.

On November 25, my alma mater and hometown team earned their 12th straight victory and secured the first undefeated regular season in the program's 50-year history.

Led by new head coach Jamey Chadwell, the Flames set a new school

record and became the first FBS football team in Virginia history to win 12 games.

As an alum, former student-athlete, parent of three graduates, and a former employee in the Liberty University Athletic Department, I am incredibly proud of this team.

The Flames' 12-0 record and current number 20 national ranking reflects the discipline, commitment, and work ethic of these talented young men.

Their individual sacrifice, unselfishness, and willingness to play for one another and give everything for a cause bigger than themselves has placed them in tonight's Conference USA Championship game, after which they will have the opportunity to play in a prestigious bowl game.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Liberty Flames on their historic season, and I am honored to represent them in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District.

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

Mr. Chair, today, I ask for my colleagues' support for my amendment to cut $10 million from this appropriations bill and contribute those funds instead toward deficit reduction.

This particular $10 million is set aside to increase diversity in biomedical research.

The Federal Government has an addiction to growth and expansion. Find a problem? Just create a new program and assign a few bureaucrats to handle it, and that will somehow allegedly fix the problem.

Under this administration, you don't have to set aside special money to support diversity. President Biden has made it very clear through nearly every executive action that he takes that every agency should look at every issue through a diversity lens.

The Biden administration makes everything about race anyway. We should not believe they need a few more million in taxpayer dollars just to make a difference in this aspect.

At some point, the Biden administration needs to stop dividing everyone based on the way they look and instead focus on actual health solutions for all Americans in need.

Americans are tired of everything being about race. When it comes to the future of biomedical research, we want to know that the best of the best are researching ways to cure cancer, fight heart disease, and help us lead longer and healthier lives. None of those are racial problems. They are human problems.

Throughout our history, American innovation has been at the top of the charts for finding breakthrough cures and therapeutics.

This year, through this bill, we are already set to invest in that research, and we can spare the $10 million that focuses on diversity and instead spend it on something that helps every American-- contributing to the spending reduction account that would actually decrease our deficit.

Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in this simple cost- saving amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have made progress today. I am glad to hear the gentlewoman from the other side of the aisle recognizes there are differences between men and women. We may next actually be able to define what a woman is and what a man is. I am glad to hear that recognition from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

If President Biden were serious about helping people, he would cut our spending. He would renew American energy. He would secure the southern border. In fact, there are millions of illegals pouring across our border, costing taxpayers $150 billion a year.

While every issue is not a racial issue, as the administration would have you think, and every issue is not a climate issue, as the administration

would have you think, today, every issue is a border issue and a spending issue. Yet, President Biden focused on woke initiatives like the Justice40 Initiative that promotes equity across the Federal Government.

Certainly today we would not criticize biomedical research. As a matter of fact, we recognize the value that it brings to our country, and I am thankful for those in the field who are doing their best to help all Americans.

We want the research done by the best researchers for all Americans, regardless of what any of them look like.

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

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

Mr. Chair, today I ask for my colleagues' support for my amendment to transfer $524.4 million from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities to the spending reduction account that would reduce our national debt and our current deficit.

The way we throw around trillions of dollars and billions of dollars, I guess $524 million doesn't seem like a lot here in Washington, but to average Americans, that is real money.

Well, this office--formerly created by ObamaCare--brags about being a leader in the scientific community's focus on socioeconomics, politics, discrimination, of course, culture, and environment in relation to health disparities.

I have heard enough there. Americans don't want politicized science. We want scientific science. We don't want health research that divides by race. We want health research that unleashes American ingenuity on a horrific disease.

Let's talk about some of the studies that are associated with this particular office: A report on how various racial groups have faced COVID-19 discrimination; a program to address how--COVID-19 discriminates, of course. Didn't you know that?

Another program is a program to address how access to safe spaces-- safe spaces--impacts health, and of course, a program on how climate change in and of itself is somehow racist.

I submit to my colleagues today that any actual scientific health innovations that come out of this office could develop in one of the other offices or projects that the $43 billion--with a b--NIH budget supports.

We don't need to set aside $524 million to focus on race once again and publish more politically charged studies that do nothing to contribute to meaningful health outcomes.

I hope my colleagues will join me to reduce spending, reduce the size of government, and support the best possible health research that is not done on a racist basis.

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

Mr. Chair, it continues to be clear that our friends on the other side just cannot tolerate or abide by the absence of racist initiatives or disparate treatment based on race, but Americans are done with the politicization of science, especially after the tyrannical government mandates that shut down the economy during the coronavirus.

President Biden promised a few years ago a return to normalcy, but his administration has only weaponized the government against the American people even more.

I wish the Biden administration would focus as much on cutting the reckless spending, securing our border, and putting Americans first as they do on dividing people along racial lines.

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

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

Mr. Chair, today, I ask for my colleagues' support for my amendment to cut $28 million from this bill and contribute that money to paying down our deficit.

My amendment takes the funds from the allocation to minority AIDS prevention. The targeted $28 million is actually a small fraction of what Americans pay in research and prevention of AIDS.

According to HIV.gov, we spent $28 billion--1,000 times this targeted amount--on the domestic response to HIV/AIDS this year.

The government approach to tackling HIV/AIDS encompasses five agencies and countless offices within those agencies. Our Housing and Urban Development Department, our Justice Department, our Defense Department, all of them spent money to combat AIDS last year. In fact, there are at least a dozen programs focused on AIDS, and the more you look into it, the more it represents the typical, bloated, ineffective government spending.

My amendment targets, again, one-tenth of a percent of those funds that are racially focused because, once again, we are dividing people and our research based on race, which does nothing to help all Americans. Race can be a contributing factor in health outcomes, but that doesn't mean it needs special funding.

If a disease disproportionately impacts a certain group, that will come out in the research and that group will benefit more from the program. The funds themselves should not be allocated based on race but allocated based on need.

I hope my colleagues will join me in reducing a small amount of spending for an issue that our government already spends billions upon.

If Members are bold enough to cut spending, we can contribute to reducing our deficit, and that is an issue that actually helps all Americans regardless of race.

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

Mr. Chair, I reiterate, there are over a dozen agencies that focus on this issue, and this amendment reduces by one- tenth of 1 percent the amount that is allocated toward AIDS research and prevention in our country today. This is the portion which is race based, which of course my friends across the aisle cannot tolerate any reduction or elimination of any program that is race based because their policies seek to divide the country.

This $28 million may seem like a drop in the bucket of what does need to be cut from our Federal spending, but this is a start.

I urge my colleagues to support ensuring funding allocation that is based on need and not based on race and to vote in favor of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity today to stop treating people differently based on race and to cut our spending together in one amendment. I support it, and I urge passage of it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this evening, I rise in support of my amendment to ensure that no funds will be used to require universities to enforce COVID-19 vaccine requirements for students and faculty.

My amendment is important for two reasons. The first is because many universities, unbelievably so, are still actively mandating COVID-19 vaccines for their students. Their students, mind you, Mr. Chairman, were never at any serious risk of the virus.

At the start of the 2023-2024 school year, there were still nearly 100 universities in this country that required a COVID-19 vaccine to attend their universities. Mr. Chairman, think of that. It has been about 4 years since the China virus first came to the United States, and the Federal Government finally, in May of this year, declared the pandemic was over. For many of us, the remediation efforts were over as soon as we realized what we suspected, that the masking up and the vaccine requirements were exploited by a bureaucracy that was trying to impose their will on normal Americans.

Yet, so many universities are still forcing students, who have likely already contracted COVID at this point--everybody has had it by now. Many of them were never sick with symptoms and all have recovered. In the event that there were any serious risks, to begin with, it didn't matter. They were required to take a vaccine that they didn't need and didn't want.

The second reason it is important that my amendment is supported is to

preemptively check the government authority, a government that has, sadly, broken the trust of the American people on this and many other issues. Over the last 3 years, we have seen this government push so many unconstitutional vaccine mandates for healthcare workers who treated us during the height of the virus, government employees, members of the military and Armed Forces who were discharged for not getting a vaccine, law enforcement officers, first responders, and lots of other regular Americans and workers across the country.

In fact, the Biden administration is still spending money to promote the COVID vaccine, and they have a program to pay for the vaccine for uninsured Americans through the end of next year, the end of 2024.

We cannot assume that because the pandemic is officially over, the anti-freedom vaccine agenda will stop. Students should be free to pursue an education without the government violating their most basic personal freedoms.

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

Mr. Chair, it should be chilling to Americans as they watch the resistance to efforts to prevent the Federal Government from funding and enforcing a vaccine requirement.

My friend on the other side said there is no vaccine requirement. Then why would she not support an amendment that says the Federal Government cannot enforce or require a vaccine mandate on a college campus?

For that matter, the Federal Government doesn't require it, so how about we say the Federal Government cannot require it? They cannot require it, not that they don't require it but that they cannot require it. We don't permit the Federal Government to require a vaccine mandate.

Why would we even allow that to be an option?

Over the last few years, Americans watched their most basic, fundamental freedom trampled on by this Federal Government: their right to worship. There is a reason why the beginning of the Bill of Rights starts with the freedom of religion. That is the first one. The right to assemble was trampled upon, and the right to travel, freedom of movement; the right to earn a living, to operate your business; and the right to make basic medical decisions for yourself or even disclose your own medical information, Mr. Chair.

America is done with tyrannical China virus mandates. Our economy is still reeling from how the government crushed it during the COVID virus and the disastrous policies of this administration.

I am sure if they could, the other side would reinstate mask mandates right here in this Chamber and vaccine mandates all around the country if given the opportunity.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support freedom and to vote in favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, virtually all the universities in this country are subsidized by Federal tax dollars. I encourage my colleagues to join us in ensuring that there will be no vaccine mandate.

Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment that would ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used to implement a vaccine mandate. This amendment applies across the Federal Government as well as to the District of Columbia since the

District falls under the oversight of the Congress and uses taxpayer dollars for its operation as the seat of the United States Government.

We cannot forget how the COVID lockdowns were exploited by the government to infringe on the personal liberties of Americans. These tyrannical lockdowns and mandates were used to inflict unneeded economic damage on small towns in rural America and on businessowners across the country.

The government crushed the economy during COVID with unjustified lockdowns, lockouts, restrictions, mandates, and more. The government harmed and mistreated our children during COVID by closing schools, requiring masks, and enforcing vaccines on those who were never truly at risk from the virus. The government suppressed information and perpetuated lies. The government prevented doctors and healthcare providers from doing what they believed was best for their patients to combat COVID.

The government trampled on basic liberties such as the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of worship, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to make a living or to operate your business, the freedom of movement and travel, the freedom to educate your children, and much more.

The government lied about the risk of the virus. The government lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine. The government lied about the need to wear a mask. The government treated everyone like those who were truly at risk, the elderly and those with extra comorbidity factors.

The government forced the termination of frontline medical personnel, first responders, law enforcement, and military personnel for not getting a vaccine, regardless of whether or not they were at serious risk or had already had the virus, and therefore, had natural immunity. The government stripped away the right to privacy, medical freedom, and bodily autonomy. The government didn't follow the science.

History will judge the government harshly for the harm done to the American people, especially to our children, during the pandemic.

President Biden mercifully, finally declared the COVID-19 public health emergency over just on May 11 of this year. This was long past due.

Unfortunately, though, vaccine mandates are still in place in some places across the country. In fact, nearly 100 universities across the country still require a COVID-19 vaccine just to attend school this year, for college students who were never at serious risk for the virus.

It is time we protect taxpayers from unwillingly funding more restrictive mandates. More importantly, it is time we protect Americans' most basic fundamental liberties.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague from the other side that, yes, this amendment would prohibit the requirement of the COVID vaccine in Washington, D.C.--not just the COVID-19 vaccine, though. Can you believe they really still want to require the COVID-19 vaccine now, nearly 4 years later?

We are talking about vaccines more generally and more broadly. We need to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Unfortunately, D.C. has demonstrated they certainly need the congressional oversight that is afforded to this body in the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, COVID-19 restrictions hurt millions of Americans, countless businesses, and many communities in our great Nation. Too many people were forced to make a choice between freedom--basic fundamental freedom--and keeping their job.

The virus was going to do what the virus was going to do. We all got it. There was nothing we could do to prevent us from getting it. The Federal Government was the worst offender, imposing draconian measures and mandates to stop the spread. We all remember that.

How many employees were fired because they made their own personal medical choices; not to mention our servicemembers who were dishonorably discharged for exercising their freedom not to get the vaccine.

Taxpayer dollars should never flow to any entity that forces people to take an experimental shot. We must safeguard personal freedoms. Isn't that the fundamental responsibility of this government and Congress?

We need to protect the right for all Americans to make the best medical decisions for themselves. We must say, in no uncertain terms, never again. Never again would we allow government to do what they did to the American people during the COVID pandemic.

My amendment simply blocks funding from going toward any authoritarian vaccine mandate.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Mr. Gooden of Texas, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration promised us that they would be the most transparent administration in our Nation's history.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they have not followed through on that promise. In fact, the White House visitor log policy provides the American people the ability to see who is lobbying this administration.

However, the Biden administration has made significant efforts to ensure this policy is nearly impossible to take

effect as intended. Despite Republicans sending correspondence to the administration requesting the disclosure of this information, the White House has not followed through and remains highly secretive. While they released some portions of visitor logs, the American people deserve full transparency.

Here are just a few examples of the Biden administration's secrecy. The White House has deliberately omitted Hunter Biden's visitor logs from the database.

They have made it apparent that no records of visitors to the Delaware residence exists. When asked to disclose the details, they denied any intent to publish visitor access logs at the President's Delaware home.

Mind you, the President has spent well over 200 days of his Presidency at that location, which was also investigated when confidential classified documents were found.

Their failure to disclose all visitor logs between the White House and the President's Delaware property have directly contradicted this administration's claims of being the most transparent administration.

These failures prove the administration's commitment to restore integrity, transparency, and trust in government is merely lip service. We have seen this across all levels of the Biden administration, whether it is the press secretary selectively allowing only cherry- picked questions, or the White House hiding the visitor logs to his retreat in Delaware where he was keeping classified documents.

This amendment will require the White House to be transparent and prohibit them from failing to disclose visitor logs in a timely and accurate manner in any way.

We can no longer allow the Biden administration to use a lack of transparency as a shield to mask their actions from public accountability.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would help my friend across the aisle with the examples that I just gave. They have deliberately omitted Hunter Biden's visitor logs, and they certainly have omitted visitor logs from the President's residence in Delaware where he spent over 200 days.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 16 million brave men and women alive today who valiantly served this Nation in the United States military.

Every year, on November 11, we unite as a nation to celebrate and honor all veterans who selflessly put their lives on the line, fighting for the freedoms that make this the greatest country on Earth.

Veterans have made considerable sacrifices serving this Nation. We must honor them and ensure they receive the benefits promised for their noble service. That is why I am introducing the Veterans Education is Timeless Act of 2023, removing arbitrary expiration dates for education benefits for veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and uphold the commitments we have made to the men and women who serve and fought on our behalf.

As we approach Veterans Day, I express my profound gratitude to all veterans and especially recognize the 45,000 who live in Virginia's Fifth District. It is an honor to recognize and represent these Americans who sacrificed so much to defend the freedoms we enjoy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my friend from Utah's resolution that denounces terrorism and anti-Semitism at universities across this country.

The world watched in horror on October 7 when Hamas launched their unprovoked and brutal terrorist attack on Israel causing the greatest single-day of loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust.

I joined the overwhelming majority of Americans in immediately expressing unwavering support for Israel, but, sadly, we have also seen an outbreak of support for the perpetrators of terror, Hamas and Hezbollah, on our college campuses.

What are we teaching college students on these campuses, and what kind of professors are doing this teaching?

In my own district, the Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Virginia issued a statement that the violence against Israel makes them hopeful for the future of Palestine, implying that Israel was somehow deserving of the atrocities committed against them.

Free speech is protected in this country, but it cannot be used to support terrorist actions.

To the University of Virginia's credit, the president issued a statement clearly condemning Hamas. Nevertheless many other university administrators were not as definitive in their responses.

This resolution challenges college administrators to condemn anti- Semitism and focus on education rather than liberal indoctrination.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to sponsor this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.