Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the service of Mr. Steve E. Landin of Laredo, Texas. A lifelong civil servant, Mr. Landin has dedicated his career to the people of South Texas.

He began his career with the City of Laredo in April 1990 and obtained an Associate's Degree in Fire Technology, as well as a Bachelor's Degree in Finance and Economics with an emphasis in Fire Administration.

Over the course of his 30-year career with the City of Laredo, Mr. Landin served as Fire Chief and Emergency Management Coordinator for twelve years.

He retired from the city in May 2020 and joined Webb County to serve as Emergency Management Coordinator for two years.

Then, in August 2022, Mr. Landin rejoined the City of Laredo to serve as Assistant City Manager and Acting Chief of Police. In his role as an Assistant City Manager, he oversees more than ten different departments in his current role.

This makes him one of only 22 people in American history to serve as both Police Chief and Fire Chief in their community.

He's also giving his expertise back to the community. Mr. Landin is an instructor in rescue, EMS, Haz-Mat, Peace Officer, and Fire Service.

He is also a Catholic Deacon. He serves the Diocese of Laredo at St Patrick Catholic Church in Laredo.

Mr. Speaker, let us all dedicate ourselves to public service just as Mr. Landin has.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the life of Dr. Glen Tate. He passed away this year after a long life spent advocating for the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas.

Born in February 1948 in Corpus Christi, Texas, Dr. Tate's childhood was spent on a small farm near Victoria, and quickly moved to Devine. Here, his love for all animals, but especially horses and cattle, was born.

Dr. Tate took this love and turned it into a career. In 1973, after graduating from Texas A&M, Tate received his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and opened two practices, with one in Alberta, Canada, and the other in Lytle, Texas.

Beyond his business successes, Dr. Tate was also renowned for his heifers. His Brangus heifers were frequently the highest selling in many special replacement female sales.

An avid rodeo fan, Dr. Tate traveled across this continent to watch the sport and spend time with his treasured friends in team roping.

Dr. Tate was especially dedicated to the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, where he served on the ICA Board of Directors and chaired the committee on animal health and safety.

He was also an active member of the South Central Texas ICA chapter and served on their board. In 2019, he was awarded the South Central Texas Independent Cattlemen's Association Trailblazer Award at the annual ICA convention.

Dr. Tate is survived by his wife of 55 years Diana and 3 children, Justin, Jennifer and Gaylyn. Glen especially loved family time with his 6 grandchildren--Lane, Bradley, Tyler, Taryn, Dalton and Josie, as well as 3 great grandchildren--Cohen, Stevie Lynn and Lottie Jane.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding. I thank her staff also for the hard work and long hours they have been putting in. I thank also my good friend from American Samoa and her staff for getting this bill to the floor.

This bill allows the Starr-Camargo Bridge, a privately-owned toll bridge between Texas and Mexico, to expand and become multimodal. This bridge's previous authorization for construction expired, so we are coming back for an extension to make sure that we pursue the planned expansion project and also add a rail bridge addition.

The planned expansion will ease congestion, reduce truck idling at the port of entry, and alleviate the supply chain issues as the gentlewoman from North Carolina just mentioned a few minutes ago.

This expansion will be paid by tolls, so no cost to the taxpayers. This bridge will serve as the vital trade link between the United States and Mexico.

Keep in mind that the trade between the U.S. and Mexico has been tremendous. In fact, just last year, the trade between the U.S. and Mexico, our number one trading partner, reached $798.9 billion. I say that in the next 4 or 5 years, the trade between the U.S. and Mexico will increase to a trillion dollars of trade.

If you look at it right now, every minute you have $1.4 million of trade between the U.S. and Mexico.

What does that mean? That means jobs, not only for the ranchers, not only for industries, not only on this side, but also on the Mexican side so people will stay over there and work over there on the other side.

This trade is important for farmers, for ranchers, for manufacturers, and producers. This bridge is not only important to south Texas, my district, but it is also important for the whole Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank not only my good friend from American Samoa and her staff, but also my good friend the gentlewoman from North Carolina and her staff, for their work.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank Senator John Cornyn for his leadership and Senator Cruz for getting this bill on the floor. I thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, and my good friend from San Antonio, Congressman Castro, for working to get this bill on the floor. I look forward to getting the President to sign this bill so we can continue creating jobs on both sides of the Rio Grande.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the legacy of the legendary Juan Jose ``Johnny'' Canales, who passed away on June 12, 2024. Johnny was a cultural icon whose influence on the Latino community, particularly in South Texas, is uncontested. Beyond Johnny's beloved music and television host careers, he was a beacon of hope and inspiration for countless aspiring Hispanics and Latinos.

Canales was born in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, and raised in Robstown, Texas. He's best remembered today for his groundbreaking bilingual variety show, The `Johnny Canales Show.' This show began in 1983 in Corpus Christi and provided an unprecedented stage for Tejano and Latino artists when such opportunities were scarce. It became a vital part of the cultural fabric of South Texas and beyond, showcasing emerging talents and giving them a chance to shine.

Johnny's enthusiastic support of young artists helped launch numerous careers, fostering a sense of pride and accomplishment within the Latino community. His catchphrase, ``You got it! Take it away!'' symbolized encouragement and empowerment. His show was more than entertainment; it celebrated Latino culture and identity.

Beyond his contributions to music, Johnny served in the Army and was an avid supporter of civil rights and veterans' issues. During his three years of active-duty service, he formed the foundation of his advocacy for the troops and veterans, a dedication that made him a cherished community figure.

Despite facing health challenges later in life, Johnny continued influencing and uplifting his community. Alongside his wife, Nora, he returned to television with ``El Show de Johnny y Nora Canales,'' ensuring that the voices of Latino artists remained heard and celebrated.

Johnny is survived by his two daughters, Nora Seleste Canales and Miroslava Canales.

Mr. Speaker, let us honor and celebrate the life of Johnny Canales, a man who truly embodied the spirit of the Latino community and a pioneer who paved the way for future generations of artists.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Dr. Paul Raymond Buitron, a pillar of our community, for his 49 years of dedicated service to patients in Laredo and South Texas. His contributions to our medical community saved his patients' lives and exemplified selfless care throughout South Texas.

The highly personal nature of his care made Dr. Paul Raymond Buitron stand above the rest. Dr. Buitron compassionately tailored treatment plans for his patients, whom he knew well. His commitment to their well-being extended far beyond traditional medicine, he worked to foster open communication and build deep, trusting relationships with his patients. Buitron's treatment was the perfect example of what a doctor should provide theft community.

Dr. Buitron was born and raised in Laredo, Texas. He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University before moving south in 1975 to earn his medical degree at the Universidad Autonoma De San Luis Potosi Facultad De Mediona in Mexico. After his journey through medical school, Dr. Buitron found his passion in otolaryngology, also known as ear, nose, and throat, at St. Joseph Hospital. He then completed his residency at the University of Louisville School of Medicine before returning to Laredo to secure his Texas State Medical license, where he served local patients ever since.

Dr. Buitron may have passed away earlier this month, but his memory will continue to resonate in the hearts and minds of the South Texans who knew him. He leaves behind his son and two daughters, Paul Raymond Buitron, Ill, Delilah Buitron Arrebola, and Dubelza Buitron, as well as his grandchildren, Nara Buitron, Paul Raymond Buitron IV, Olivia Buitron, Lennon Wolfgang Gardener, and Ringo Sebastian Arrebola. Dr. Paul Raymond Buitron provided compassionate care and demonstrated unwavering dedication to his patients, leaving a lasting legacy in the Laredo community.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due to a recent death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196 and YEA on Roll Call No. 197.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 177 and YEA on Roll Call No. 178.

Madam Speaker, as the ranking member, I live at the border. I don't just go visit the border. I know the border. This is a strong border security bill that we passed in a bipartisan, commonsense way.

This bill takes away all the poisonous riders and adds bipartisan riders. It adds the largest number of Border Patrol agents, 22,000 agents. It adds CBP officers at the bridges so they can stop fentanyl. It adds support staff so they can support the agents. It adds money to air marines so they can do their work and counter drones. It adds money for the TSA so they can have pay equity. It adds money to the food and shelter program, which is important for the border community. It adds beds that are being used right now, even up to 41,700 beds. It adds money for deportation when aliens don't have their rights after they get processed. It fully funds reunification efforts for families that were unjustly separated. It adds money for the Border Patrol.

Madam Speaker, it adds money to Stonegarden so local law enforcement can do their work.

I would say, Madam Speaker, this is the strongest border security bill that we have. It is fair. I ask folks to support this bill.

Again, I live at the border. I don't go visit. This is a strong Homeland Security bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding. In addition, I thank both Mr. Raskin and Mr. Donalds for speaking about these three heroes from Laredo.

Madam Speaker, this bill honors the lives of Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez, and Sergeant Roberto Arizola, Jr., who gave their lives for our Nation. This bill will rename the Del Mar Post Office in Laredo, Texas, which will honor these heroes' sacrifices.

Although words and actions cannot replace these brave individuals, dedicating this post office honors their legacies.

Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza was born on July 10, 2001, in Laredo, Texas, but lived in nearby Rio Bravo, Texas, all his life. He graduated from Lyndon B. Johnson High School in 2019. Shortly after graduating, he joined the United States Marine Corps.

On August 26, 2021, during the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Espinoza was one of the 13 servicemembers killed in Kabul, Afghanistan. He was only 20 years old.

Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez lived in El Cenizo, a town near Laredo, where he attended United South High School and was involved in Junior ROTC. He led his group to a Junior ROTC national championship in 1998.

After graduating from high school in 2000, he joined the United States Marine Forces Reserve. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, 4th Division, Corpus Christi, Texas. On January 13, 2005, Lance Corporal Rodriguez died in action while conducting combat operations in the Anbar Province in Iraq. He was only 23 years of age.

Sergeant Roberto Arizola was born December 11, 1973, in Laredo, Texas. He graduated from high school in 1992 and enlisted in the United States Army in 1996. He was assigned to the 297th Military Intelligence Battalion, 513th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Sergeant Arizola had been a Border Patrol agent taking care of our borders in Laredo, Texas, before he was deployed to Iraq in May of 2004. On June 8, 2005, a day before he was scheduled to return from Iraq, Sergeant Arizola was killed in an explosion near his vehicle in Baghdad, Iraq. He was only 31 years of age.

Through this dedication, we ensure that their heroic legacy remains engraved in the hearts of our community, a lasting tribute to their selfless service and courage.

Madam Speaker, I thank not only these brave soldiers but all the veterans who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. We would not be here without them.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the exemplary career of Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Jose Angel Moreno, a distinguished 32-year veteran of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas.

Immigrating to Laredo at the age of 7, AUSA Moreno's journey to legal prominence began with his education at local schools in the area. Following his graduation from Martin High School, he served two years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps.

Returning to Laredo, he continued his education by graduating from Laredo Junior College (now Laredo College) and Laredo State University (now TAMIU). AUSA Moreno went on to obtain his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in Austin.

AUSA Moreno has been an integral part of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas since he joined in 1991, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to justice. Over the course of his tenure, he has prosecuted multi-defendant cases spanning every division in the district. His expertise extends across a broad spectrum of federal crimes, including immigration, narcotics, firearms, violent crime, fraud, and public corruption. Notably, AUSA Moreno achieved a significant milestone in 1993 when he secured the first drug kingpin prosecution in the district.

His extensive experience showcases not only his legal acumen but also his dedication to public service. AUSA Jose Angel Moreno stands as a testament to the pursuit of justice and the embodiment of the highest ideals of the legal profession. I commend him for his remarkable career and service to the Southern

District of Texas, and I wish him the best in his well-earned retirement.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Representative Norton, for her leadership on getting this bill to the floor, and I thank her for yielding to me.

I also thank my good friends, Mr. Pfluger and Mr. Arrington, for carrying this legislation along with Senator Cruz, Senator Lujan, and Senator Cornyn on the Senate side for their work on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to designate a portion of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor as Interstate 27. I-27 starts in my hometown of Laredo, Texas, which ranks number one in trade of all the Nation's 450-plus airports, seaports, and border crossings. It starts off in Laredo, then goes up into west Texas and off to New Mexico.

In the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill, I was able to secure language designating this as a future interstate making it eligible for Federal funding.

This bill today formally names it the I-27 in Texas and in New Mexico. Upgrading this route to an interstate will result in a $17.2 billion increase in the Texas GDP and 178,000 of new jobs.

I certainly urge my colleagues in the House to pass this bipartisan bill to support trade and growth in Texas and New Mexico. I see my good friend Mr. Arrington, and I thank him for his leadership in west Texas. I am glad that we are able to connect Laredo with west Texas and onto New Mexico.

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

First of all, I thank Chairwoman Kay Granger and Ranking Member DeLauro for working together as much as possible. I certainly would thank our chairman, David Joyce. I know we have some disagreements, but at the end of this process, we are going to be working together making sure that the Homeland Security bill passes in a bipartisan way.

Democrats and Republicans had a deal when we passed the debt bill some months ago. Now our colleagues, the House Republicans, are backing away from this deal and yielding to some extreme demands that will not help border security.

Now the House remains in chaos as the Republicans have been infighting and that will all but guarantee a government shutdown at the hands of the far right in just a few days. Instead of working on a bipartisan continuing resolution that will keep the government open, one that will pass both Chambers and be signed into law, we are here talking about bills that are not going to go very far in the Senate.

Again, I want to make sure that people understand that we want to work together. We want to make this a bipartisan bill to get it done.

As the ranking member of Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee and as a Member that actually lives on the border, I am very concerned about ensuring that the border is secure and that the Department has the resources it needs to do that successfully. Instead of that, what are we doing? If we have a shutdown, we are going to have over 226 folks, employees from the Department of Homeland Security, that are going to continue to work for a period of time and not get paid, and, again, that is not the way to create morale for our Border Patrol and other agents that we have down there at the border.

I strongly support the hiring of additional agents, but, if there is a shutdown, what is going to happen is that this will prevent us from onboarding the anticipated 150 additional agents in October. It would also stop the recruitment and vetting efforts that impact CBP ability to onboard additional agents later on. We cannot have a shutdown, and we have got to make sure that we work together to prevent the shutdown itself.

Now, if you look at the bill itself, the proposed bill, let's look at a couple of things. Yes, we did have some bipartisan investments and oversight requirements that we worked together on, but there are certain funding decisions and policy riders that I cannot support at this moment.

We have to understand the border. Some of my colleagues don't understand the border, and they call it a war zone. If my colleagues look at the criminal records or the criminal figures that we have, whether it is murder, rape, assault, the border is actually safer than so many other parts of the country. In fact, Washington, D.C., is about two or three times more dangerous, if you want to look at those figures, than the border community.

Now, when it comes to migration issues, yes, we do have a problem, and we do need to address it, but I think we need to stop playing defense on the 1-yard line, which is the U.S.-Mexico border.

What we need to do is extend the perimeter where we can work with partners like Mexico, Central America, South America to make sure that we provide that perimeter and stop folks before they come over to our border itself. This bill has some very outdated strategies, and one of them I know doesn't work, and I will call that the 14th century solution to a 21st century problem, which is the border wall. We are spending $2.1 billion, or we intend to spend $2.1 billion on a wall that really doesn't stop. If I can show you some of the figures, I will explain why.

If you look at the border wall, you will see that the fence is in many parts of the border itself, but if you see the heat maps where people are coming into the border, it is usually where the border fence is at.

If I can show south Texas as an example, you will see that, in south Texas, you have a fence, and if you see the heat map, we have a fence here, we have a fence here, we have a fence here, we have a fence there, we have a fence there, and so on, but the activity is where the fence is at.

Let me explain why. If you look at the fence, we have a river. The middle of the river is actually the U.S. boundary with Mexico. We don't have a fence there. If you look at the riverbanks, we don't have a fence there also because it is going to get washed away.

What we do is we actually put a fence about a quarter of a mile or sometimes even a half a mile away, and what happens, you see the fence here, the one in the red itself, and then you see the river over here. Instead of having a fence over here, it is actually put a quarter mile or a mile away. Therefore, what happens when you have this situation?

Well, first of all, if you are asking for asylum, like most people are asking, you are going to see people that will touch the riverbank. They walked half a mile or a quarter of a mile to the fence over here and asked for asylum, so does the fence stop them? No, it doesn't.

If you asked all those landowners, they will say, you are ceding away thousands and thousands of acres of good farming land, good ranching land, because you put the fence here and the river is over here.

Again, if you want to stop drugs, I know we added some money for technology, but we have got to have the money at the ports of entry where 90 to

94 percent of the meth, the fentanyl, the cocaine are coming in, instead of through this particular area

Again, this bill also has no funding for USCIS that would help reduce the backlog of the migration, so the people that have been waiting for a while, we are not putting any resources in for the USCIS. We have got to make sure that we help the folks who are trying to come in the legal way.

We do lose a lot of opportunities. We can do a lot more to add money to counter the fentanyl, the opioids. Again, most drugs will come in through the ports of entry, and that is where we need to put the focus.

Finally, also, we should have an updated border security improvement plan.

Again, I certainly want to work with my good friend, Mr. Joyce. We are going to be together later on in the process. I know we have got some disagreements, but we will get there.

With that, I hope that we have a good bipartisan bill at the end of the process.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and we have no further speakers.

Mr. Chair and to my good colleague, Mr. Joyce, we are apart right now. I know we are going to get together, but I do want to remind some of our colleagues that we had an opportunity under the current bill that we have right now. We added in the last couple years $2.4 billion. That is a 15 percent increase for border patrol agents, pay increases, add more Border Patrol agents, ICE, CBP, the other folks in.

We had the moneys to do that, but at the end of the day--and I will just take one example--we gave money to Homeland, a 15 percent increase, yet there are only two Members--when we all voted--on the Republican side that actually supported the appropriations bill, Homeland. So if we care so much about Homeland, why did we vote ``no'' on the final appropriations bill?

I know some of us are going to vote ``no,'' and I am voting ``no'' on this one, but on the final one, I will support the final appropriations bill.

The other thing is as the Democratic leader, Mr. Jeffries, said, we have 3 days to work this out, and by passing this bill to the Senate it is not going to get there. I would just like to remind Members that we ought to be working on preventing the shutdown.

If you look at the shutdowns that we have had since the 1990s, in 1995 it was a Republican House that had a 5-day shutdown. That was November 13, 1995. On December 15, 1995, there was another Republican- led House with 21 days of a shutdown. Then on September 30, 2013, again, for 16 days it was a Republican-led House that allowed the shutdown. Then on January 19, 2018, another Republican-led House shutdown lasted for 2 days. Then on December 21, 2018, there was another Republican-led House shutdown for 34 days.

So, again, I hope that on Saturday or on Sunday at 12:01 there is not another Republican-led shutdown. We are asking you please give us input. Let's sit down. Let's talk about it. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Joyce and his staff. I know we can do this together. We will be voting ``no'' on this, but I know at the end of this process we will be voting together on this on a ``yes'' bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this en bloc amendment. It contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of the Members' priorities on both sides. This is the way we ought to do it--bipartisan. Certainly, I have no objection, and I encourage adoption of this amendment because it supports shared priorities, including counter fentanyl detention, Border Patrol checkpoints and ports of entry, investigations for missing and exploited children, and more technology for the frontline officers and agents.

Mr. Chair, I support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, this is a bipartisan amendment. I support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

There are already avenues for victims of crime to engage with both the Department of Homeland Security's Victims Engagement and Services Line or the Department of Justice's Office of Victims of Crime. The Department of Homeland Security has protection for victims, and the Department of Justice also has the Office of Victims of Crime.

This office would be duplicative of those efforts and would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. We are doing that already. Frankly, when you say this, you are basically taking the position that crime only occurs when you have a migrant.

The stats do not support this conclusion. In fact, the Department of Justice released a study in 2020 and found that undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across the range of felony offenses.

I don't care where the attack came from. I want to support the victims. I want to support the victims, and that is what the Department of Justice's Office of Victims of Crime does. Let's support that office and provide it more funding.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Again, the Department of Justice Office of Victims of Crime supports everybody. They don't ask you where the crime came in. They will support you. This office would be duplicative of those efforts and would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Let the Victims Engagement and Services Line office and the Office of Victims of Crime do their job. Let's make sure that they get the support.

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

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

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

I understand what my colleague is talking about. We do want to make sure that we address border issues, but we have to make sure that we address it in the right way.

I will talk about the report. In fact, I will be happy to tell you that I also get frustrated sometimes when we don't get the reports, and I will be happy to work with you and with the chairman to get you that report.

I will tell you that in the bill already, there is a $25 million hold for this report. If you add another $10 million, does that make the pain more painful?

Keep in mind that this account doesn't just fund bureaucracy. It also funds suicide prevention efforts and other health security measures. It funds child welfare professionals for tender-age kids in DHS custody. It funds the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also.

I also get frustrated when we don't get the report. If you add another $30 million, another $40 million, will that get you there?

You mentioned the border. Keep in mind that we are concerned, and I want to make sure that we control our border. If you want to stop drugs, as one of our colleagues said, most drugs will come in through ports of entry, but we are not putting the emphasis on ports of entry.

We need to do a lot more, more canines, more technology. If you want to look at the people who are illegally here, I remind everybody that the number one violator for visa overstays, which have been millions over the years, has been Canada. I don't hear any of you talking about putting a wall between the U.S. and Canada. I say that because, again, we have to be smart on how we address it.

I invite you down to the border. I love when people come in and spend a few hours. I live there, and I will tell you, I will take the biggest cities in your State--I would say if you take Atlanta and, on the border, I take Laredo, murder, rape, and assault, we have lower crime rates than the city, per 100,000. If you look at the national crime rate for murders, the border crime rate is lower.

We have to look at crime as one issue and then look at migration. I am with you. I hate open borders. I want to make sure that we work together, but we have to do this in a bipartisan way.

I feel their frustration. There are some reports I wish we could get faster. I will work with them and the chairman to get this report to them.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government the sole authority to control immigration and secure the national borders.

I would say that if we would do this in partnership, working with the State and local government, like we do with the program that we started called Stonegarden where we provide funding, that would be the way to do it. Unfortunately, there are some States that want to go solo on doing certain things.

Let me give you an explanation. When the Governor from the State of Texas put out the buoys, those buoys were less than a quarter of a mile for a river that is 1,200 miles. Less than a quarter of a mile for a river that is 1,200 miles long is like putting a postage stamp in the middle of a football

field to stop a running back from crossing the 1-yard line.

The second thing is, when the Governor has talked about stopping every truck like he is doing, what he is doing is--he said he is inspecting every truck. I used to do the budget for the DPS. The only thing they can do is check license plates, driver's licenses, or the brakes and windshield wipers. They can't even open the trucks.

What they are doing is, in Eagle Pass, in El Paso, and other places, they are stopping millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of trade itself. Again, we want to work with the States, but you just can't go solo on this.

Again, when you say lawlessness at the border, I would say in the State of Texas, if you look at the most dangerous cities that we have, none of them are on the border. I am not going to name any of my Texas cities, but they are the big urban areas, per 100,000, where murder, rape, and assault are a lot higher than at the border. Again, the border is safe when we talk about crime.

On the issue of migration, I am with you. We need to have repercussions, but we need to put money outside the 1-yard line and put it on the 20-yard line and work with other countries.

In fact, when you look at 2015, when President Obama had the numbers go down, it was because Mexico was stopping people. In 2019, when President Trump was taking credit for stopping the numbers and having the lowest crossings, do you know why? Because we got Mexico to do its job on the southern border.

Again, we can either play defense on the 1-yard line or we can play defense on the 20-yard line, and we have to look at this and how we address it.

If you want to talk about crime, look at the big urban cities. Do we want to make sure we secure the border? I am with you. We have to have repercussions. We have to make sure that we play defense outside the 1- yard line, but we can't have a State go solo.

They want to work with us? My brother was a DPS officer for 27 years. I want to make sure that they work with us hand in hand, and Stonegarden does that where we provide money to the cities, counties, and States.

We are on the same page. We are just looking at this in a very different way.

My good friend from my State of Texas, I am with him. I just oppose this particular amendment.

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

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

Again, I understand where the gentleman is coming from, but, if we look at it, even the prior administration also understood that the way to address this issue is to put those gates there because of the flooding.

Congress has been looking at this issue with CBP for the last 15 years, and, while it is not perfect, I do understand the prior two administrations have come to the same conclusion, and that is: Deal with the monsoons, the flooding, and they put those doors to make sure that things are not washed off.

Keep in mind that we are spending about $36 million a mile for every fence that we put up. That is $36 million a mile. With about $3 to $5 million, we can get the best technology that can include drones, that could include sensors, that can include so much of the technology to address that.

Again, if you spent $36 million a mile for a fence, all you need is a $100 ladder that would take care of the problem that you have. Again, I will show that, even in Texas, Mr. Chairman, people are concerned about the flooding over there, and that is why the fence is put a quarter mile or a half a mile away, so all the landowners that are over here, they lose their property because you are putting the fence on this side, so the renters, the property, the private right is gone because of the fence.

All you have is the river over here. People just walk over here to the fence and claim asylum. We have to have repercussions at the border. Whoever is supposed to stay, stay. Whoever is supposed to be deported should be deported.

Again, we cannot play defense on the 1-yard line, called the U.S. border. We need to extend the perimeter out there. Again, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the wall might be damaged because of the water or the flooding, but, again, the past administration--the Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the Bush administration-- all came up with the same conclusion when they got asked to look at this issue, and they said: You have to put doors or gates so the rain or the floods don't wash away the fence.

Mr. Chair, I understand where my colleague is coming from, but I will ask the floor to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

I trust the work of Border Patrol agents. I trust the work of OFO, which are the men and women in blue at ports of entry. I trust the Air and Marine agents. I trust the work of ICE agents. I trust the work of HSI, Homeland Security agents. I trust the work that they do.

What we are looking at, what wants to be changed, is section 221 that says that none--this is what the law is right now--none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be made available to transport aliens unlawfully present, paroled, or inadmissible to the United States into the interior of the United States for purposes other than the enforcement of immigration law.

It is already here. Again, I don't think we ought to be legislating on the House floor. I think we need to get input from the agents that I mentioned that I support: Border Patrol, OFO, Air and Marine, ICE, HSI. I think we need to ask for it, but the law is already there. It says: cannot go into the interior of the U.S. itself.

Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise respectfully in opposition against this amendment, but I will say this: My good friend and I share the border. We will continue working.

I do believe in detention beds. I do believe there is a place for them. I do believe that we should best utilize the detention beds for the high-risk detainees, and I believe also that we should give ICE flexibility.

I will commit to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales) and to my other good friend from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) that I will work with them when we get in conference committee because this is not the final bill. I will work with them on this particular language.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

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

Any Secretary of Homeland Security plays a very critical role in national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served our country as U.S. Attorney, director of USCIS, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and now Secretary.

I know that we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle where they say that the Secretary has not achieved operational control of the border. Operational control of the border was first defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and neither the Border Patrol chief nor the Secretary has yet declared operational control since then.

If you look at it, two Republican Presidents, Bush and Trump, neither of them obtained operational control. Two Democrats, Obama and Biden, also have not obtained operational control.

I know how important the Constitution is to my colleagues, and I would ask you to say that by targeting salaries it is simply unconstitutional, as pointed out in the United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

If we are going to uphold the Constitution, the Court has said that targeting salaries is not the right way. We all want to secure the border, but targeting somebody's salary does not get us to the end that we want to get to.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my chairman, in strong opposition to this amendment.

CISA Director Easterly leads an organization of over 3,000 dedicated public servants who play a critical role in our national security.

First, Director Easterly is the operational lead for Federal cybersecurity charged with protecting and defending the Federal civilian executive branch networks, the dot-gov we all rely on.

Second, CISA serves as the national coordinator for critical infrastructure security and resilience, working with partners across government and industry to make sure that we protect and defend our Nation's critical infrastructure from bad actors.

Again, when you target somebody by name and you want to reduce their salary, it is unconstitutional. Targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out by United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, in asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, for yielding. Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) on this amendment.

What we are looking at here is CISA Director of Election Security plays a critical role in our national security. Director Hale has served his role in many administrations as a career civil servant under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Again, I say that targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946. I join my chairman, Mr. Joyce, in urging our colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment of my friend from Arizona.

The DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans plays a critical role in our national security. The Senate confirmed this position to do certain things. At his confirmation, Mr. Silvers said that the Department must secure the borders. It must be relentless in disrupting the human and drug trafficking organizations that inflict such devastation. It must administer our immigration system securely and humanely and must also facilitate the lawful flows of trade and travel that power this economy.

Again, we might have some differences on how we secure the border. We did have an opportunity the last 2 years in the Homeland appropriations that we added $2.4 billion, a 15 percent increase, to Homeland the last couple of years. I remind my colleagues that except for two members of the Republican Party that are still serving, everybody else voted no on securing the borders--hiring more Border Patrol, hiring more ICE agents, hiring more RFO, Air and Marine, technology. Except for two Members that are still serving on the Republican side, everybody voted no.

If we want to secure the border, let's look at how we do that. Again, I say this just because we might have differences on how we do it, but to target an individual, I would assume it would violate the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution. In fact, targeting an individual by name is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case in 1946.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconstitutional amendment. If we want to have a debate on border policy, we certainly can do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Respectfully, to my colleague, again, if we are concerned about the security of the country, national security, border security, again, I will remind that the last couple of years, we have added over $2.4 billion to the Homeland Security bill, and there were only two of my Republican colleagues that are still in Congress that voted for the increase.

If we are concerned about security and the work that we are doing-- terrorism, counterterrorism, and threat--we all should have voted for the appropriation bill.

Mr. Chair, let me bring up some figures again. We know as of July 2023, just a couple months ago, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 percent of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.

If you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I want to go after anybody that brings drugs in but, again, we, as Members of Congress, have the constitutional duty to provide oversight over the budget. The way we provide oversight is not by targeting somebody by name and going after their salary.

Again, this will violate the Bill of Attainder Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and it would also be in violation of the Supreme Court case of 1946 that we have mentioned before.

If we want to provide oversight, there is a way of doing it and it is not targeting somebody without their due process and basically firing that individual.

Again, if we want to go ahead and debate how much money we put in, we can do that, but not by targeting somebody against the Constitution.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, again, this amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, again, by targeting someone by name is unconstitutional as pointed out by U.S. v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

Again, I would go back. If we are so interested in border security and national security, we had a chance to add $2.4 billion to CBP's budget authority, an increase of 15 percent. It doesn't matter what the vehicle was. The bottom line is some people who voted, except for two of my Republican colleagues, voted against pay raises for Border Patrol, the mental health services that we provided, college help also, clothing allowance, technology, canines, everything that is so important to border security, except for two of my colleagues who are still in Congress.

Again, you can say that I didn't like the vehicle and this pay raise for Border Patrol and the other help that we provided. The bottom line is some folks voted against border security, and now we are trying to come back to try to change the narrative.

Again, I would say that it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Lovett case of 1946. If we want to provide oversight, there are ways, and I will be happy to sit down with my colleague from Arizona and go over that.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me just say, as a point of privilege, it is so good to see my good friend from Louisiana. Again, I am with him all the way. I appreciate it.

We disagree on this amendment. We might agree on defunding other things, but not this particular one.

I will say, again, in the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP operation moneys. From there, we added moneys for more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, new intel specialists, trade enforcement staff, and other personnel. We added additional technology at the ports of entry. We added initiatives that support CBP workforce, such as suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, tuition allowance, to make sure that we support our men and women in green, in blue, and Homeland Security in general.

Again, I will say that, if we support them, except for two Members that are still on my Republican side, all voted against supporting Border Patrol in all this. If we are so interested, why did we vote on $2.4 billion of moneys for Border Patrol?

Again, this is something that I would ask you to look at. Again, what we should be focusing right now is: How do we keep our government open? Folks said, If you pass H.R. 2, and we are going to go ahead and get the job done. It is right in the Senate. If this bill passes the floor, it is going to be in the Senate.

What we ought to be focusing on is: How do we keep the government open? Again, I would remind my colleagues that, if you look at the last five shutdowns, the House Republicans controlled the House. On November 13, 1995, the Republicans controlled the House; December 15, 1995, it was the Republicans who controlled the House; September 30, 2013, the Republicans controlled the House; January 19, 2018, the Republicans controlled the House; December 21, 2018, again, the Republicans controlled. We had shutdowns, and, again, if we are not careful, the Republican-controlled House will have another shutdown at 12:01 this coming Sunday.

Again, we want to work with you. We want to sit down. You know my position. I have always said that I don't like open borders, and we have to make sure that we secure the border. Again, people talk about crime. I can pick any city. I will say New Orleans. If I pick New Orleans, you will see that crime is lower per 100,000 than in my hometown of Laredo. Rape, murder, assaults, those crimes are lower. Our border is safe.

Now, that is on the crime part. If you want to talk about migration, I agree we need to do more on that, but cutting somebody's salary doesn't get us to what we need. We need to make sure that we stop playing defense on the one-yard line, called the U.S. border.

What we need to do is to do what happened in 2015 and 2019. President Barack Obama sat down with the Mexicans and said, Hey, you have to stop people from coming to the border, and guess what? The numbers went down.

In 2019, President Trump did the same thing, and asked the Mexicans, Hey, stop the people from coming in. Guess what? The numbers came down.

We need to make sure that we put authorities--and I emphasize-- authorities for Homeland, where they can do more outside the U.S. border, because otherwise, we are not going to see the same thing we saw in 2015 and 2019.

We keep playing defense on the one-yard line. I want to secure the border, but, again, if you want to stop drugs, I will say it again, most of the drugs will be coming in--again, the latest numbers from July of 2023, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.

Again, I will say that, if you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I don't care who brings in drugs. I want to make sure that they are put in jail.

Again, I will say this: I know that a lot of you believe in the border wall, but if you look, this is fencing all here, and this is where the heat map shows. Why? Because the border fence is a quarter mile to a mile away from the river where the international border is.

Keep in mind--I agree with you--89 to 90 percent of the people asking for asylum don't get granted asylum officers. What we ought to be doing is sending judges and asylum officers down here to make sure that we do our job over here.

If we need to deport somebody, I will be the first one to say, Deport that individual, but, again, putting a wall, $36 million a mile, when you can get $3 to $5 million for the drones.

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

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

Mr. Chair, since 1999, the policy has been, under the Clinton administration, under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration, that immigration officials still consider whether a noncitizen will become dependent on cash benefits. I agree. That has been the policy since 1999, and I think we ought to stick with that policy where a noncitizen should not be dependent on cash benefits. Follow the law, and that is what we want to do under the current policy.

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

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

Mr. Chair, these policies, in my opinion, should be debated in a different bill. DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. The DHS doesn't come up with policies. They don't develop their independent policies on these issues. Rather, they implement policies that originate with the CDC.

We can get into a debate about wearing masks or having vaccines, but, again, I think we need to concentrate this on another bill and not on Homeland.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we support border security. We also support the U.S. Citizen Immigration Service where they have asylum officers.

One of the things we ought to be doing is adding more money to support the asylum officers so they can be at the border, and they can make a decision whether somebody stays or has a credible fear.

We know the numbers; 89, 90 percent of the people who ask for asylum will be denied because the law is very specific on what asylum is.

It has to be persecution by the state based on religion or based on political beliefs. If you are coming in because you want a job, or you are coming in for a better life, or you are coming in because of a drought or you are hungry or because your country is falling apart, it is not allowed under the law.

What we ought to do is make sure that Homeland has the money to support border security. Again, I remind my friends that the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority, a 15 percent increase. Except for two Members from the Republican side, everybody voted ``no'' on it.

Again, we want to support border security. If you want to look at fentanyl, the fentanyl will come in through two ports in Mexico, the legal precursors.

Then they come up here, and we have to make sure that we add money for technology to make sure that we stop the drugs coming in.

Again, I am for border security, and I want to work with you to get to border security. Congressman Holman in 1976, the Holman Rule--keep in mind that the Bill of Attainder Clause says no punishment without a trial.

I believe this is in violation of Lovett in The Supreme Court in 1946; it says this type of action is unconstitutional.

Again, if we want to have a debate, let's go ahead and have a debate, but to target somebody's salary is unconstitutional.

I agree. We need to do more to secure the border, and I certainly want to work with my colleagues from Colorado, Ohio, and wherever you might be from. I certainly want to work with you.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the last 2 years we had an opportunity to add $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority. That is a 15 percent increase.

Except for two Members, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no''. Money for Border Patrol, money for intelligence, money for securing the border, and they voted ``no'' on it. We had an opportunity to vote ``yes'', and it was voted against.

Again, I would say that if we have differences, how do we address this, by cutting somebody's salary, which is unconstitutional?

In United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court says you can't do this. It is due process without a trial, punishment without a trial, which is the Bill of Attainder Clause again.

I want to secure the border, but I want to make sure that we put funding on this. We are about to have a shutdown this Saturday.

Again, we have been asking our Republican friends to sit down, and I am ready to sit down and work it out. If we don't do this, we are going to be affecting so many people.

It is going to affect 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees, including 38,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard military personnel.

It is going to affect 59,000 CBP personnel, including Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents, 58,000 TSA personnel, 19,300 FEMA employees, and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. We are not focusing on what we ought to focus on, and that is making sure that we don't have a shutdown.

Again, Members, I would remind you that the last five shutdowns, you were in charge, and again, five--we are going to make it number six.

We want to sit down and work with you, but again, as the minority Members, we want to sit down and be at the table.

I ask that we oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition. This particular individual has served in senior roles throughout DHS, including as a career official under Republican and Democratic administrations.

As a career official, she led the initial implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards for ICE during the Trump administration--and she was not fired under the Trump administration. During the Trump administration she also led the development of a 2019 National Detention Standards, which is interesting because my colleagues included it as a provision in this bill that would require those standards to be applied to all detention facilities.

If we have a problem with policy, let's debate policy. I can tell you we ought to be focusing on making sure that we keep the government open. We can pass these four bills, but I can tell you there is no Senate conference over there. They are not going to take these bills up in the next couple of days.

Instead of focusing on what we ought to do, that is, preventing the sixth Republican-led shutdown since 1995, we ought to be working together instead of doing this.

This amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said in United States v. Lovett, 1946, it is unconstitutional to target an individual.

Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

This bill on Homeland Security passed June 21, 2023. We are in September and we are just taking the bill right now. This bill, Homeland Security, got passed out of appropriations on June 21, 2023, and here we are late at night trying to pass a bill where there is no Senate conference. They are not even considering this bill, and we are not addressing the issue before us.

The issue before us is that the last government shutdowns were under Republican House majorities. In fact, the longest shutdown in history was a Republican House and Senate with Trump in the White House in 2018. Again, on November 13, 1995, December 15, 1995, September 30, 2013, June 19, 2018, and December 21, 2018, Republican-controlled Houses had a shutdown, five of them that we are looking at, and I think we are going to have the sixth one. Again, this bill passed on June 21 of 2023, and here we are in the middle of the night trying to decide.

Instead of focusing on what we ought to do to make sure we don't have a government shutdown, we are focusing on a bill that might pass over to the Senate, but there is no conference committee. What are we going to do at 12:01?

Again, if we have a problem or a difference--I should say, a difference in policy--I am ready to sit down. I don't want to see open borders. I want to make sure we support Border Patrol. I don't just go visit the border; I live there. I go with Border Patrol to church, I see them at the stores, our kids go to school together. I want to make sure that we support our men and women in green.

This amendment is unconstitutional. When you target salaries, the Supreme Court has already said in United States v. Lovett in 1946, it said, the Bill of Attainder Clause to the Constitution says that you cannot provide punishment without due process.

If we have a difference, let's debate it. You know what? We should have been doing this on June 22, the day after we passed it. Here we are in the middle of the night, 9:10 p.m. Eastern time, and we are talking about passing a bill that the Senate is not even considering right now.

Mr. Chair, I want to sit down with my good friend from Colorado and the chairman, Mr. Joyce, but this is not the time to be talking about taking people's salaries away.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think this is a policy that should be debated in a different context in a different bill.

DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. DHS does not develop independent policies on these issues but rather implements policies that originate within the CDC.

Again, we can have this debate, but I think we are in the wrong jurisdiction of the bill. This is the Department of Homeland Security bill, not the Labor-HHS bill. If we are talking about things that are important, I would respectfully ask that we look at the date that this Homeland bill was on--June 21, 2023.

We should have taken this bill on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:30 on September 27, looking at trying to pass one of four bills to a Senate that has not taken H.R. 2. Certainly, they are not in conference ready to take up any of our bills.

What we ought to be focusing on is the shutdown. That is what we ought to be focusing on. Again, I will remind my friend that the last five government shutdowns were under a Republican House majority. We are, again, under a House Republican majority, whether it was on November 13, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 5 days of a shutdown; December 15, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 21 days of a shutdown; September 30, 2023, a Republican-controlled House, 16 days of a shutdown; January 19, 2018, 2 days; and, of course, December 21, 2018, a Republican-controlled House, 34 days.

Again, we are under a Republican-controlled House. On Sunday, 12:01, I hope we are not talking about a shutdown because, Members, we could pass this bill. Over there, there is no Senate waiting for this. They are working on a continuing resolution. If we have a shutdown, it is border security that is going to be hurt because, in October, starting next week, we are supposed to hire 150 new Border Patrol agents.

All of that will stop. Any vetting, any hiring, anything that we are supposed to do will be shut down. Members should have done this on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:33 p.m. Eastern time, where we are debating a bill and an amendment that has nothing to do with this. It is the wrong jurisdiction.

I say, respectfully, that we ought to be focusing on trying to keep the government open.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask Members to vote ``no'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to an amendment that prohibits funding for the Uniting for Ukraine program.

In life, we have to make a decision: Either we are for good or for evil. Either we are for democracy or for dictatorships. This Uniting for Ukraine program allows Ukrainians who are displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to apply to come to the U.S. through humanitarian parole.

This amendment seeks to stop a program and block thousands of Ukrainians from entering the country. Here, again, is an attempt to cut any support for Ukraine as they fight to defend the country from an illegal Russian invasion.

Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe through the use of force. He is doing so in violation of international law and is deliberately killing civilians, destroying the economic livelihood of Ukraine, and taking kids from Ukraine, stealing the kids, taking them to Russia.

War crimes are being committed on a mass scale, and the United States and the democratic nations of the world must continue to strongly oppose him.

Again, I remind Members that this bill passed on June 21, 2023. Here we are, at 9:40 p.m., and we are going to be here till about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I don't mind working. My parents were migrant workers who worked hard, so we can work and stay here till whatever time, but the point I am trying to make is that instead of looking at this bill on June 22, 2023, here we are a few days before the shutdown and, again, I remind everyone that the last five shutdowns have been by Republican-controlled Houses.

This Sunday, at 12:01, we will probably see the sixth Republican- controlled shutdown. Again, I want to work with the majority. I want to work with my good friend, who is always in a good mood, Mr. Joyce. I want to work with him on this, but you can't say: We are in the majority. You are in the minority. You are not going to have a say.

Some of us don't just go visit the border. We actually live there. I work with the Border Patrol. I want to support them.

I want to remind Members that we had an opportunity to put $2.4 billion, which we did add, to support Border Patrol and control the border. Guess what? All except for two Republicans that are still in the House of Representatives voted against border security.

Again, we have a choice. It is either good or evil. It is either a dictatorship or a democracy. I stand for good, and I stand for democracy, and I ask Members to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chair, haven't we done this amendment two or three times already?

I mean, we know that the majority doesn't want to pay the salary. We already passed--

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I guess the question I have is, we have done this amendment three times.

Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. I guess his salary would now be $3 dollars since we have done this three times.

Nevertheless, I would remind Members again that the last two fiscal years we added $2.4 billion to CBP authority. That is a 15-percent increase. Money that would have been used to hire more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, intel specialists, threat enforcement officers, and other personnel, adding technology at the ports of entry where 90 or 94 percent of the drugs come in.

Again, initiatives to support the morale of the CBP workforce, like suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, and tuition.

Guess what? Every single Republican, except two that are still serving, voted no to pay the Border Patrol and give them the money so they can do the work. They voted no.

Again, here we are, at 9:50. What are we doing? Taking a bill that passed on June 21, 2023. We are not talking about the continuing resolution--because again, on Sunday at 12:01, we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995.

Again, I thank all the staff, both on the Republicans' and Democrats' side, for working late; Capitol Police are working late. We can stay here as long as you want to, and maybe increase it to $4 instead of $3 on the pay for the Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I would say this: We are going to have a shutdown because we can pass this bill, or we can say we are going to strip out the H2B visa and get some Members who are going to vote ``no.'' Whatever you want to do, but there is no Senate waiting to handle this bill.

Mr. Chair, I say to my colleagues again, we can stay as long as we want to. I can stay, and some of us will be here at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, but again, we ought to be working on a CR because we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown. Five in a row; you can make it six if you don't work with us.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment respectfully, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect, but I would remind folks that we can't play defense on the one-yard line and call it the U.S. border. We have to make sure we move the perimeter. The Secretary has to look at threats inside and outside the United States.

Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to look at 2015.

What happened in 2015? The numbers went down under President Obama. Why? Because we were able to go, visit, talk to other countries so they can stop the migrants before they came to the U.S. The numbers went down.

In 2019, under President Trump, the same thing happened. Again, we were able to work with those countries, traveled over there, talked to them to make sure that they are able to stop folks before they come over here. The numbers went down.

Again, we need to do the same thing, because it is not only the Secretary, but if you have a shutdown--and again, I remind Members at 10:00 at night, we should have been doing this debate back on June 22, a day after the appropriations of Homeland Security passed.

But here we are, addressing something when we know there is no Senate waiting for this bill. There is no Senate ready that has handled H.R. 2. So again, the best thing to do to avoid the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995 is to sit down with Democrats, do it in a bipartisan way, and address this particular issue.

Mr. Chair, a shutdown would not be helpful for anybody. I ask my colleagues to please look at this amendment, and I urge them to reject it.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It ensures that all employees across the Department have a sufficient up- to-date understanding for climate change.

If we keep in mind, one of the agencies under DHS is FEMA. What does FEMA deal with? Climate, hurricanes. All this strategy does is it blocks the

Department from studying or even understanding one of the most pressing issues.

Again, just understand, we can't put our heads in the sand and say there is nothing happening on that, yet in times of crisis during a natural disaster we expect the Department to deliver on its mission and make decisions during evolving circumstances.

All it does is understand the evolving environment. That is all.

I will vote ``no'' and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this amendment would strike a section within a proposed rule. Proposed rules have no force of law.

If enacted, the administration would just simply rename the section and continue to execute the fee rules as currently as they are trying to do that.

Let's keep in mind USCIS is a fee-funded agency. Except for a small portion, they don't get appropriations. They work on fees. We have to find the right balance on the fees and where we add those fees.

Again, I understand what you're trying to do, but I think this amendment

will strike a proposed rule, and I don't think this is the right way to address this. I do understand what you are saying, but based on that, I would ask that we vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I would say this as the ranking member, if Chairman Joyce would want to sit down with me, I would be happy to sit down and have this conversation.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect to my colleague, the former sheriff, as my brother is a former sheriff on the border.

I ask that if we have differences in opinion, instead of just eliminating this office of civil rights, I would remind our colleagues that this Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties covers the 260,000 personnel who work for DHS. That is, it covers the 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees and the 59,000 CBP personnel. That includes Border Patrol and OFO, who are the men and women in blue. It covers 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents and immigration enforcement officers; 58,000 TSA personnel; 19,300 FEMA employees; and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. All of those employees are under Homeland.

Again, I do understand we might have some differences, and I will be the first one to say let's sit down and have a bipartisan conversation to address those concerns. To eliminate the office, I would say that would not be the right policy.

Again, I remind folks, at 10:23, that we passed the Homeland appropriations on June 21. We should have been doing this at 10:23 on June 22 instead of doing this tonight.

I don't think there is a conference committee on the Senate side. We

ought to be focusing on how to keep the government open.

With all due respect to my good friend from Texas, the former sheriff, we might have some differences, but I will be the first one to sit down with him and figure out how we can address these issues.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Again, getting information from Homeland can be frustrating. I have been frustrated, also. I agree that they should be providing information.

Sometimes we disagree with the policy on how to secure the border. Sometimes I disagree with my Republican friends. Sometimes I disagree with my Democratic friends. Again, it is a difference in policy that we can work out.

To go after a specific person by name is against the Constitution, the Bill of Attainder Clause, where you should have due process before this step is taken. Targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out by the United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.

There is another way to address this. I will be happy to sit down with my good friend from Texas to address this.

Mr. Chair, at this time, I respectfully oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I urge Members to vote ``no.''

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This order on voting access will ensure that all Americans can exercise their right to vote, including voters in underserved communities; voters who are younger or older, in rural and urban areas; servicemembers and veterans; and other folks like voters with disabilities or language access concerns.

Madam Chair, I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would undermine a recent effort by the Secretary--in fact, I believe it was only announced a few days ago--to convene private-sector experts in homeland and national security, some widely recognized, including former senior intelligence officials, who will provide the DHS with a wide range of views and perspectives on the Federal Government's intelligence enterprise to DHS' I&A and the Office of the Counterterrorism Coordinator. All

we are trying to do is get information from experts.

Madam Chair, I say that we vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, with all due respect to my good friend from Texas.

First of all, this program is not in existence, so why are we going to try to prohibit funds for something that doesn't even exist?

One of the things that we ought to be looking at is trying to find an expedited way of removing folks who are not supposed to be here. As I said before, if you get 100 people before an immigration judge, you will see that 89 to 90 percent, generally speaking, are going to be rejected because, again, the law is very specific as to what persecution is.

What I am hoping the administration is trying to do is to make sure that we expedite removals. If you expedite removals, that is the repercussion that we all have been talking about. That is the consequence that we all have been talking about.

To say no funds will be used--for what? That program is not in. We need to fund expedited ways to remove people who, after they have their day in court, should be removed.

With all respect to my good friend from Texas, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I stand against this amendment. I am in opposition. I support ICE. I support enforcing the law.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, respectfully, to my friend from Texas.

I am looking at the language, and I assume that the first executive order that is referenced is 13678. That one deals with authority for criminal investigators of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued by President Obama, so I assume that is not the correct one. You are probably looking at 13768, which deals with ICE.

Nevertheless, even though he is referring to the wrong one here, this amendment is not doing what I think he intends to do. All I am saying is I trust ICE to prioritize and limit their resources where they can focus on the greatest threat.

Again, if we are worried about the border, I would emphasize that for the last 2 fiscal years, we have added $2.4 billion to CBP budget authority, over a 15 percent increase.

I would say that except for two Members, who are not present here today, on the Republican side, everybody voted ``no.''

Again, I ask you to focus on what we have. I assume that the executive order that he is referring to--I would ask you if you want to withdraw the amendment and bring it back, we will consider it tomorrow.

Otherwise, I would oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time, with all due respect to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I do not believe in catch and release, and I certainly want to give our men and women everything they need to have, and that is why it is important that we address this issue.

Your amendment deals with a program called remain in Mexico. The only problem is, we can't stop the funds in that program because it got terminated in February 2021. We had an opportunity to vote on this on May 22, but we did not bring this up at that time. Except for two Members, everybody voted ``no'' on this on the Republican side, and it is a little bit too late for this.

Madam Chair, I would say to my good friend from Texas, I do support the MPP, I do support it, but this program is gone. I think we need to have a little bit of discussion if we are going to be looking at ways to stop folks from coming in.

I would remind folks what happened in 2015 and what happened in 2019 under President Trump and under President Obama, that is, we worked with Mexico, not to keep them there, but actually for them to secure their southern border with Guatemala. We need to do that again.

If we are able to do that, I think we should be able to address that issue. I do support MPP, but this amendment is trying to stop funding for something that doesn't exist. For that reason, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, we had an opportunity for the last 2 fiscal years to put $2 billion to support CBP, including ICE, and that was a 15 percent increase. We had an opportunity to vote on it, and there were folks that did not support these particular moneys for Homeland.

I have full faith in the men and women that work for DHS, they are capable of carrying out their Federal law enforcement responsibilities and of carrying out their statutory authorities.

This amendment is not needed. I support ICE and they will carry out the work that needs to be done so they can enforce immigration law.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I think I know what my friend from New York is trying to get to, but, again, I would ask that she please look at the language here. The language says section, and then there is a blank, followed by ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide assistance to the Department of Defense to house persons . . . '' Persons.

What do we mean by persons? Undocumented? Military folks? Or do we only house animals? But it says any person at military installations except if they are there because of the Stafford Act or U.S. Coast Guard personnel. Even that ``personnel,'' that means personnel, a Coast Guard officer can stay there, but their families or dependents cannot stay there.

Again, I know what they are trying to get at, but I think this language, the way it was drafted by the attorneys, will probably do more harm because, again, you cannot house any person except for Stafford or Coast Guard personnel, but not their families.

Again, I don't know if you want to withdraw that or if we could consider this, but the way this is drafted, I would ask her to please look at this carefully.

For those reasons, I would oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family obligation, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 364.

personal explanation

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Texas delegation from San Antonio--Mr. Joaquin Castro, Mr. Chip Roy, Mr. Greg Casar, and Mr. Tony Gonzales--for all working together, along with the Senators.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add seven slots to the Ronald Reagan National Airport.

Right now, cities like San Antonio cannot get direct flights. The slots added in this amendment will allow more cities like San Antonio to have a direct flight.

With a population of 1.4 million, San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the U.S. San Antonio is known as Military Town USA and has over 80,000 Active-Duty members and 159,000 veterans. Joint Base San Antonio trains more soldiers than any other place in the country, and it is home to the Department of Defense's largest military hospital.

We have to do this for the veterans. We have to do this for the soldiers.

Mr. Chair, for Military Town USA, along with the San Antonio delegation, I ask that we pass this amendment.