Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Michigan for yielding. I also thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership and Ranking Member Grijalva for his support of this bill--my bill, the Drought Preparedness Act--and for being willing to consider it through the Natural Resources Committee and help us to bring it to the floor today.

Finally, I thank my colleague, Representative Ciscomani, who co- chairs the Colorado River Caucus here with me in the United States and is a co-lead of this particular bill.

As has been mentioned, throughout the West and certainly in my home State of Colorado, we have seen continuing drought conditions threaten the lives and the livelihoods of so many of our communities. These ongoing drought conditions are shrinking the region's many, many water lifelines.

I will just say as someone who represents the Second Congressional District of Colorado and has the privilege of representing the Headwaters of the Colorado River, we know in my district and our communities know firsthand just how important that critical water supply is for our State.

That is why we created and formed the bipartisan Colorado River Caucus, a forum for Members located in Colorado River Basin States to discuss the various issues facing the Colorado River, upper basin and lower basin States.

As the Bureau of Reclamation, States, Tribes, and stakeholders are working toward long-term solutions, it is necessary that we continue to provide States and agency partners with every tool possible to mitigate its impacts, and that is exactly what this bill does.

As Representative Dingell and Chairman Westerman just articulated, the authorities that the Bureau has used in the past include drought contingency planning, resiliency projects, and emergency response actions. It is critical that we empower the Bureau to be able to utilize these tools into the future.

The Bureau of Reclamation testified during the legislative hearing during this particular bill as to just how important these tools are and how critical it is for Congress to ensure that they continue.

I am excited that this bill passed unanimously out of the House Natural Resources Committee and has strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill here on the floor so we can get this across the finish line and to support Colorado and States across the Rocky Mountain West and the 17 Bureau of Reclamation States as we continue to deal with this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member for yielding time.

Republicans have had the majority in this House for 11 months, and what do they have to show for it? Nothing--no efforts to grow the middle class, no efforts to lower costs, no efforts to build safer communities; instead, an effort to default on our Nation's debt, two attempts to shut down the government, vacating their own Speaker, and now a baseless impeachment that they are pursuing for one reason and one reason alone--because former President Trump ordered them to do so.

Ask them to articulate what crime they are investigating, and they can't give you an answer. Ask them to identify any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden--crickets.

Mr. Speaker, the American people, I can assure you, are deeply disappointed in the actions that House Republicans have taken for the better part of the last year, and this action is no different.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this farce of a process. Let's get back to doing the important work that the American people expect us to do.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Puerto Rico, as well as the chairman and the ranking member for their support, their partnership, and their leadership in helping facilitate this bill in its journey to the House floor today. I thank them all for eloquently articulating the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of this legislation and why I decided to introduce it with a broad coalition of lawmakers.

I would be remiss if I didn't also say a word of gratitude to Representative Debbie Lesko, who has been my partner on this bill, as well as Senators Baldwin, Blackburn, and Bennet who are leading the bicameral legislation in the Senate, the companion bill.

This bill, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, is a simple bill but a profoundly important bill. It is bipartisan, and it is bicameral.

Now, by way of background, and as the chairman articulated, I was proud to work on legislation in the 116th Congress that authorized the construction of the Women's Suffrage National Monument on Federal lands here in Washington, D.C.

We secured the first outdoor statue in honor of the brave women behind the women's suffrage movement, a monument that will honor the contributions made by a diverse group of women in the fight for women's suffrage.

This bipartisan legislation passed both chambers and was signed into law. This effort, Mr. Speaker, has been locally led from the start, driven by constituents in my Congressional District back home in Colorado, and in my view, a prime example of what we can accomplish when we display and demonstrate Colorado's ingenuity and passion and put it to good work.

In the years since, the sponsors of the monument have been hard at work to determine the best location for it to be placed within Washington, D.C.

As the chairman stated, the decision was that women's history deserves to have a place on our National Mall.

Right now, as the chairman articulated, of the 40 monuments on The National Mall, there are none dedicated and committed to women's history.

This proposed placement has broad support, including from all of our Nation's living First Ladies who serve as honorary chairs of the Women's Suffrage National Monument Foundation.

Placing a monument, as you know, Mr. Speaker, specifically on our National Mall, does require an additional act of Congress, which is the legislation before us today.

This legislation simply allows the monument to be placed on the Reserve area of The National Mall. As the chairman articulated, it will be privately funded. It will not cost the Federal Government a dime.

I might just add on a more personal note, I, like many of my colleagues, am a father. I have a 5-year-old daughter and a 5-month-old son.

My daughter, Natalie, had her first trip to Washington, D.C., when she was

just a few months old. She joined me here on the floor in January of 2019 when I was sworn into office here for the first time.

I simply cannot wait for her to one day be able to come to Washington, D.C., and to see women's history reflected in the monuments and the memorials that are at the core of our Nation's Capital--not just her, but of course, all children, all Americans to be able to come and see that firsthand. This bill is an important step to doing just that.

I am hopeful that we will earn the support of our colleagues across both sides of the aisle. I think this bill is an important step in making our National Mall representative of American history, honoring the legacy of the women who fought for their rights all these years ago.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment which would allocate additional funding to the Bureau of Reclamation for the Colorado River Compliance Account and to support the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Programs.

Mr. Chair, first, I would express my gratitude to the ranking member, who has served with such distinction in this body representing northwestern Ohio, Toledo and Sandusky, and doing her part to build a better future for the people of Ohio and the people of our country. In particular, her service as ranking member of this august subcommittee and always trying to find a way to bridge the divide and to build a bipartisan path forward.

It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have regrettably chosen not to do that with this particular bill.

However, with respect to this amendment, the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs provide us with an opportunity to chart a bipartisan path forward. They are a model of successful partnership and collaboration across agencies, States, with both Federal and non-Federal partners in my State of Colorado, in addition to Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico.

I have been leading legislation over the past several years to reauthorize these programs, including bipartisan legislation in the previous Congress, which was signed into law and legislation this year that would extend the programs for an additional 7 years.

The programs work to recover and protect four species of endangered and threatened fish, while providing Endangered Species Act compliance for over 2,500 water projects.

The Colorado River Compliance Account provides critical Federal support for these programs, and my amendment would simply increase the Bureau of Reclamation's funding to direct additional Federal resources to these programs.

I hope it is an amendment that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support. It is common sense.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support and his words with respect to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would assure the chairman of the subcommittee that I won't be asking for a recorded vote on this amendment, but it is a similar amendment to the amendment just offered.

Essentially, this amendment directs the allocation of funding from a different account, again, to support this incredibly important program for all the reasons that had been stated by, of course, the ranking member of the subcommittee as well as the chairman previously.

The headwaters of the Colorado River are in my district. As the ranking member so eloquently stated, we face a complex set of challenges in the West as it relates to the Colorado River, which I continue to work to address in my State of Colorado and, of course, working with our colleagues in the Upper Basin and Lower Basin States.

This program, the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program, I think is a great and salient example of a way in which we can chart unique solutions to really pressing challenges; in this case, of course, the potential for endangered species in our community and in our water basins.

All that being said, Mr. Chairman, without belaboring the point, I would simply say it is a program worth investing in and it is why I am pursuing this particular amendment, and I hope my colleagues can support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, again, for his indulgence and support on this particular amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I would simply say to my colleague from New York, if you don't want a shutdown, if you are trying to prevent a shutdown, prove it.

There is a simple way to prove it, Madam Speaker. Defeat the previous question so we can consider a simple amendment, an amendment that does one thing, that let's this body take an up or down vote on the bipartisan Republican and Democratic Senate continuing resolution that is being negotiated as we speak. That is it. It gives that resolution privilege so that this House can consider it, can take that up or down vote and ensure that the government stays funded, Madam Speaker.

If you are not prepared to do that, if my colleagues aren't prepared to do that, then please spare us these supposed concerns for a government shutdown that you have engineered from the start.

You want to talk about blame, Madam Speaker, here is a quote, and this is not my quote.

This is not conservatism. This is stupidity. The idea that

we are going to shut the government down when we don't

control the Senate, when we don't control the White House.

These people can't define a win. They don't know how to take

yes for an answer. It is a clown show. You keep running

lunatics, this is what you are going to have.

These are not my words, Madam Speaker. These are the words of the gentleman from New York. If he doesn't want to be a part of this clown show--I don't disagree with him, by the way. I don't think the American people disagree with him either.

Clearly, the House Republican Caucus is in dysfunction and chaos, but there is an easy way for him to leave this clown show and govern with Republican Senators, Democratic Senators, with your colleagues on this side of the aisle, defeat the previous question and support the amendment and let's have the debate on a bipartisan CR that keeps our government funded.

I don't know how a Member can vote for the previous question and deprive this body of an opportunity to vote on that bipartisan CR. I don't know how you go back and tell the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops and law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents who will be forced to work without pay that you decided that this body shouldn't vote on a stopgap measure to keep the government running. I don't know how you do that.

I can tell you this: The American people well understand the Republican plan that they have brought to the floor. You do not get to have it both ways. You don't get to say that you support law enforcement and fentanyl interdiction and then put a bill on the floor that cuts the DEA, that cuts the FBI, that will harm State and local law enforcement officers.

You do not get to say you care about public safety and then put a bill on the floor that cuts, by more than 50 percent, wildland fire suppression in States like Colorado, the State that I happen to be honored to represent in the United States Congress. You do not get to have it both ways.

The time for political games is over.

We have 24 hours to go, Madam Speaker. Let's defeat the previous question and let's pass this amendment to keep the government up and running.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his indulgence, and I would be remiss to come back to the floor to simply say only in Washington can you have Members who claim they want to avoid a shutdown while they take every step to shut down the government.

Only in Washington can you have Members who claim to support law enforcement while they promote a bill that cuts funding for law enforcement.

Only in Washington can you claim that you want to secure the border while engineering a shutdown that will force Border Patrol agents to work without pay.

Only in Washington can you claim that this so-called debt commission that they have designed will not harm programs like Social Security months after rolling out a plan--the Republican Study Committee in June--rolling out a plan that guts Social Security.

My colleague from Pennsylvania is a member of that group. The gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier, who apparently has proposed this amendment, is a member of that group. Why don't they be honest with the American people about their plans? Because they know the plan to cut Social Security is deeply unpopular, and, yet, they soldier on.

Mr. Speaker, 24 hours, that is how much time we have. Defeat the previous question. Let's support the amendment to give an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan deal that Republicans and Senate Democrats have been working on. Let's keep the government up and running. Let's avert this extreme Republican government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, 16 days, that is how much time we have left until the government runs out of funding.

Six weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood here on the floor of the House with my colleagues as House Republicans gaveled the House out of session for a 45-day recess.

Now, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the priority that House Republicans were pursuing on that day, as we gaveled out of session. I can assure you it was not to fund the government. It was, instead, a bill targeting the lesser prairie chicken and the long-eared bat, literally. This came on the heels of a summer spent on Republican bills to protect gas stoves.

Six weeks later, we are back in Washington. Republicans have gaveled the Congress back into session. Here we are on the House floor yet again. What are we spending our time doing? Perhaps a bill to fund the government? No. A bill to ensure that members of our armed

forces are paid, that the operations of our government remain up and running? No. Instead, House Republicans choose to spend the time of this body debating a bill attacking electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles, gas stoves, the long-eared bat, and the lesser prairie chicken. Those are the priorities of the House Republican caucus. Sixteen days away from a government shutdown, and this is how House Republicans choose to spend our time.

The priorities that House Republicans are pursuing are grossly out of step with the priorities of the American people.

You are in charge, Mr. Speaker. You could choose today to put bills on the floor to build safer communities or lower costs or grow the middle class. Instead, we are left with political games, and, oh, that is right, a baseless impeachment inquiry that the Speaker announced 48 hours ago. Maybe we can get back to the basic job of the U.S. House of governing, of passing a budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is a good place to start. The Fiscal Responsibility Act that this body passed a mere 4 months ago set out negotiated spending levels. I don't know if the Speaker voted for it, but 149 of your colleagues did in the Republican caucus. The ranking member, my friend from Texas, voted for it.

Now, months later, the Republican caucus, the Speaker, they have abandoned, they have revoked, reneged on that deal. Why? Because the far-right members of their caucus have demanded it. Here we are, 16 days away from a government shutdown that many members of the Republican Conference seem fixated on creating.

We had a Rules Committee hearing, which the distinguished gentlewoman joined me in, just a few days ago, where one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle was unabashed, who said: Let's shut it down.

Of course, for those Americans watching, they know that we have been here before. They have seen this movie. They have seen how it ends.

Mr. Speaker, they know that if Republicans are in control of the House, there is one thing they can count on, and that is that Republicans will shut the government down as they did in the 1990s under Speaker Newt Gingrich, as they did in 2013 under Speaker Boehner, as they did in 2018 under Speaker Ryan.

I implore my colleagues to get back to the basics of governing. Work with us in good faith. Honor the agreement that you all voted for 4 months ago. Let's fund the government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague, Representative DeGette, to honor the life of an extraordinary Coloradan.

John Fielder was a prolific nature photographer who lived in Summit County since 2006. Over 50 books have been published showing his photography.

John also worked to protect Colorado's ranches, public lands, and wildlife. Over his 40 year career, John was recognized on several occasions for his work. He received the 1993 Sierra Club Ansel Adams Award, the 2011 the Aldo Leopold Foundation's first Achievement Award ever given to an individual, and an Honorary Degree in Sustainability Studies from Colorado Mountain College.

We thank John for his work elevating the natural beauty of Colorado and for fighting to protect our pristine lands.

Mr. Speaker, this House is well served by the many public servants who make up the ranks of congressional staff, and I want to acknowledge the passing of one such public servant, Stan Sloss. Stanley, or ``Stan'' as he was known to all those who worked with and knew him, grew up in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, and spent his career serving a number of Members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate who represented Colorado and Alaska. He was a legislative director to former Representative David Skaggs and former Senator Mark Udall, who both, at the time Stan worked for them, represented the Second Congressional District of Colorado--a district that I am proud to represent.

Stan dedicated his life to public service having spent 37 years in various roles in Congress. When he retired, at age 70, then Senator Mark Udall, provided a tribute to Stan in a floor speech, in which he captured the essence of what made Stan so respected and admired. Those who had the benefit of working with Stan during his time in Congress can attest to the sentiments reflected in that tribute.

As Sen. Mark Udall and Rep. David Skaggs noted in their remarks, Stan was adept at drafting legislation and constructing public policies that were examples of legal rigor and textual precision to achieve the desired objectives of those seeking quality solutions to challenging issues. His work has stood the test of time and is a model for all of us as we work together to address the needs of our constituents and the goals of our nation. But it was his integrity, his willingness to work with all sides, his respect of others' opinions, and his personal approach of patience and good humor that he brought to all of his endeavors that will be most remembered by those who worked with him and valued his expertise and friendship.

Stan is survived by his sister Ellie Hanlon, as well as other family members and everyone fortunate enough to have known and worked with him. Stan set the standard for professionalism, decorum, patience, and perfected the skill of staffing congressional Members and mentoring those who wished to learn what it takes to succeed in Congress and crafting enduring and effective public policy.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his service and for yielding me time. I certainly concur with the sentiments that he has expressed.

We hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this resolution is somehow designed to modernize the Endangered Species Act. Of course, the American people know better. They understand that this resolution is designed to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and we heard that over and over again during the Rules Committee proceeding that the ranking member referenced.

Putting that aside for a moment, I suspect many Americans who are watching today, Madam Speaker, are wondering what in the world is the House of Representatives debating today? They are not the only ones.

Earlier this afternoon, the majority leader from the Republican side announced that this House would be adjourning this evening. Now, as you know, Madam Speaker, in 65 days, the Federal Government will not be able to function absent this Congress passing a budget and averting a government shutdown.

The congressional recess that Republican leadership has announced that apparently is set to commence in less than 2 hours is 45 days long. Madam Speaker, you can do the math. That leaves this Congress with precious little time to do the people's business: To pass a budget to fund the government.

Instead of doing that, we are debating, what? The northern long-eared bat. That is how Republicans in Washington have determined to spend the waning hours of this congressional session. It is consistent with the way that

they have conducted their majority in this House for the better part of the last 7 months.

No bills to lower costs, no bills to grow the middle class, no bills to build safer communities. Bills on gas stoves, hearings on gas stoves, three hearings on gas stoves, bills on the lesser prairie- chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

The priorities that House Republicans have pursued in this Chamber are grossly out of step with the priorities of the American people. The American people expect us to do the people's work, and we are not doing that today.

I believe that in 65 days, when House Republicans shut down the government--which they seem determined to do, given that they have passed one appropriation bill before they have decided to send everybody home--the American people will be right to question the priorities of congressional Republicans; why they dither instead of working in good faith with their colleagues to fund the government, to do the basic work of governing. It is an important question, and one I hope every American asks of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my friend from Pennsylvania, for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills. The first of those bills is H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, this is typically a bipartisan bill, one of the most bipartisan bills that we consider in the United States Congress. That is not the case this year. Why? Because House Republicans decided to inject into this bill extreme policy riders that threaten the freedoms of each and every American. They have kicked off appropriations season by doubling down on funding bills that endanger essential services.

Just to speak frankly, neither this bill nor any of the others that they will bring to the floor on the appropriations

side have any chance of becoming law. My colleagues across the aisle know that.

Today, they come to the floor to proudly tout a bill that would slash $1.3 billion--not my number; their number--from military construction programs that support quality-of-life services for members of the Armed Forces and their families.

Democrats fight against cuts to vital programs that help the American people. Unfortunately, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

We saw this cycle many times, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the last 7 months, it has been hard to understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.

At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted for a House rules package that promised an open rules process for amendments. Yet, here we are, debating another rule structured by Speaker McCarthy and Republican leadership.

Now, House Republicans threaten to shut down the government in order to fulfill an unpopular agenda full of far-right policy riders that undermine equal opportunity, restrict access to abortion, and more.

We are going to hear a lot from my colleague, my friend on the other side of the aisle, about what he claims this bill will do. It is important for the American people to understand three simple things.

It cuts military construction by $1.3 billion. Think about the impact that will have, Mr. Speaker, on servicemembers across the country.

It funds no infrastructure backlog for the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, we have a $100 billion infrastructure backlog in the Department of Defense for installations across the world, across the country, and in our districts. The President asked for $2 billion to start to address that backlog. House Republicans said no. How much did they give? Zero.

Finally, the bill does nothing to address toxic PFAS contamination-- not a thing. Last year, House Democrats, under President Biden's leadership, appropriated $200 million toward PFAS remediation to address the toxic chemicals that are literally killing people across the country. This bill appropriates how much? None.

Those are the facts.

If that weren't enough, as the gentleman said, we are considering two other bills today. The American people watching this might think that perhaps House Republicans would decide to bring a bill to the floor to lower costs, address inflation, try to reduce the cost of healthcare, grow the middle class, build safer communities, or address school safety. No. House Republicans have declined to put any of those bills on the floor. Instead, what are we left with? Hearings and bills on gas stoves and, today, bills on the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat. That is what we are here to debate, Mr. Speaker.

I think the American people would be deeply disappointed at the choice of priorities that House Republicans are pursuing. Let's get back to the core issues at hand. Let's negotiate in good faith. Let's do the people's business.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that only in Washington can politicians demand recognition after being shamed into doing the right thing. That is what we just heard.

We all know that the default on America act that House Republicans pursued was primed to cut veterans benefits. House Democrats, President Biden, and Senate Democrats led the charge to convince our colleagues to come back from the brink, and now they have the audacity to demand that we thank them for it.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this comes from the same party that overwhelmingly voted against the Honoring our PACT Act, the most comprehensive healthcare legislation for veterans in my lifetime, the proudest vote I have taken since I was sworn into the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, 174 of them voted against it, including the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now they have the audacity to claim that they are fighting for veterans?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is a little empty on the other side of the aisle. There are perhaps not many Members who want to come to the floor to defend the propriety of this bill that cuts military construction funding, and I don't blame them.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), whom I respect, has the unenviable task of trying to make the case for a bill that cuts military construction funding, does nothing to address the infrastructure backlog, and cuts PFAS toxic exposure remediation, to say nothing of the many other ills within the legislation.

We heard a lot earlier about the supposed work that House Republicans are doing on the appropriations front. Of course, this is the first appropriations bill that has come to the floor. However, we still can't get House Republicans to commit to protecting Social Security and Medicare, as House Democrats have championed. Of course, we know why. It is because they have been unabashed about their efforts to cut both vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that we have offered before to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which unambiguously states that it is the House's duty to keep our solemn promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and reject any cuts to these critical programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten) to discuss our very important proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about facts. Again, these are not my numbers. These are their numbers. This year in this bill, House Republicans appropriate $17.5 billion for military construction. That is $1.5 billion less than the current level. In other words, it is a decrease. It is a cut of $1.5 billion to military construction, which is used for housing for our servicemembers.

Under current levels, there is $200 million dedicated to PFAS remediation. In this bill, there is none.

President Biden requested $2 billion to address the infrastructure backlog in our military. Under this bill, there is none.

These are not my numbers. These are their numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Hill today titled: ``Senate GOP fears House actions could lead to shutdown: It's going to be a problem.''

Mr. Speaker, that article is quoting a Republican Senator from the gentleman's region, his neighbor, Senator Shelley Moore Capito.

When House Republicans shut down the government in 66 days, which they seem committed to doing, the American people will be right to ask the question, they will be justified to ask the question of why House Republicans decided to focus their time on the northern long-eared bat and the lesser prairie-chicken. It is a fair question for the American people to ask.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Again it feels like Ground Hog Day. Again, I have great respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but I don't understand what numbers he is looking at.

Does he deny that in statute we appropriated last year $19 billion for military construction?

He is an appropriator. I am happy to engage in a colloquy with him to the extent that he wishes to clarify that.

Last year, military construction was funded at $19 billion. This year, it is funded at $17.5 billion. Not complicated, and, of course, the gentleman knows that because half of his caucus is bragging about the fact that they have cut military construction and a variety of other programs, juxtaposed against the levels that were set by Congressional Democrats.

This is not disputed anywhere but apparently during this particular debate. They are cutting military construction. They are not funding military infrastructure backlog needs that the President has requested of this Congress; and they have zeroed out any dedicated funding for PFAS remediation. Those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for the respectful debate. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on the bills that this House will unfortunately be considering this week but, nonetheless, I appreciate his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, today marks 200 days since House Republicans gaveled us into this 118th Session of the United States Congress; 200 days that they have been in control; 200 days that they have had the gavels here in Washington, D.C.

The American people would be justified in asking how have House Republicans spent those 200 days. Any bills to address inflation, to lower costs for working families, any bills to grow the middle class, to build safer communities? The answer is none.

Instead, they have pursued extreme policy after extreme policy, and this MILCON appropriation bill is no exception. Gas stoves, the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and whatever other issue House Republicans conjure up when we are back in session, that is how they have chosen to spend their time and taxpayer dollars.

When House Democrats were in control, working with President Biden and our colleagues in the upper Chamber, we focused on issues that mattered to the American people:

A bipartisan infrastructure law that, unfortunately, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber voted against that is rebuilding bridges and roads and highways across this country from Pennsylvania to Colorado, ensuring folks have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe;

The PACT Act, the most comprehensive veterans' healthcare legislation enacted in my lifetime, that 174 Republicans in this Chamber voted against;

The Inflation Reduction Act, capping insulin costs at $35 for seniors participating in Medicare across the country. That is how we spent our time.

As I said earlier, we know that in 66 days, House Republicans will shut down the government. They are telegraphing that. Many of their Members have said publicly that they want to shut down the government; that, in their view, a shutdown of the government is the desired outcome; 66 days.

Mr. Speaker, in 72 hours, Republicans will gavel this Chamber out of session. They will adjourn this Chamber for a 45-day recess.

Mr. Speaker, 66 days until the government runs out of funding, 45-day recess, 72 hours until that recess, and we are here debating the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

It is deeply disappointing, and it does not comport with how the American public expects us to operate here in Washington, D.C. We can do better, and I would challenge my Republican colleagues to come back from the brink that I described earlier, work with us in good faith. Help us deliver for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. If you support cutting military construction, if you support not addressing military infrastructure backlog, if you support zeroing out PFAS remediation then, by all means, vote for the MILCON bill. But if you oppose those draconian cuts, as I do, then I hope you will vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy and retirement of Darla Sidles, the first female Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park.

For the last seven years, Darla has been in charge of managing and supervising all operations within Rocky Mountain National Park--the Nation's fourth busiest national park--an area I am lucky to represent in the United States Congress. Rocky Mountain National Park surpassed 4 million visitors for the first time the year before she took over, and it has exceeded 4 million almost every year since,

Darla has helped Rocky Mountain National Park navigate unprecedented challenges like record levels of visitors, the global pandemic forcing a closure of the park in 2020, and then another closure of the park that same year as a result of Colorado's two largest wildfires ripping through Rocky Mountain and burning about 10 percent of the park. Through it all she remained dedicated to improving and protecting our treasured public lands.

Darla has served at the National Park Service for 34 successful years. She has been a trusted and valued partner to my office and to the Town of Estes Park. We are sad to see Darla go, but wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 235 (H.R. 1669).

Mr. Speaker, I rise with 80 of my Democratic colleagues to demand that Republicans do their job, do the right thing, and pay America's bills.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle are here to do the people's business.

Where are Republicans? They have rushed out of town as America speeds toward economic catastrophe. Why? It is because they know they have forced a dangerous and false choice on the American people to either impose draconian and cruel cuts that will hurt American families, America's veterans, and American seniors or a devastating and catastrophic default.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unacceptable choice. It is time for House Republicans to get serious.

House Democrats are here united, just as we were at the beginning of this year and just as we will be throughout this legislative Congress to do the people's business.

It is time for Republicans to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be able to be here today to salute my friend, a fine man, a good man, and someone who has served our country so admirably over the course of these last 12 years in David Cicilline.

There is a quote from President John Adams that I want to share, our second President who once said: ``But I fear that in every assembly, members will obtain an influence, by noise not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by ignorance, not learning; by contracted hearts, not large souls.''

There are many places in our country in which his fears ring true today, but one of the places where it does not is in Rhode Island where, for the better part of the last decade, the people of Rhode Island could rest easy knowing they had elected a leader who would serve them admirably. A leader whose common sense was on full display as a Member of the House leadership team.

I can remember very early in my tenure in Congress 5 years ago learning from and being mentored by David Cicilline as he chaired the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, always willing to help a new Member navigate the experience of serving in Congress.

His greatness was on full display during the course of the investigation that he led as chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee. As his vice chair during that subcommittee investigation, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, firsthand just how hard he worked day in, day out.

The entrenched interests and the concentrated power that he fought against day after day to ensure that that investigation would be done and that ultimately the American public would benefit from it. Of course, his learning was on full display during the course of both Presidential impeachments over the course of the last 4 years, but, in particular, during the second impeachment when Mr. Cicilline and I stood together on the floor of the United States Senate when his fidelity to the Constitution and his role in defending our democracy was on full display to millions of Americans.

He has been an effective Representative for the people of Rhode Island. He has been a tireless leader here in the United States Congress. He has done his country and his State a great service. He has been a dear friend, a dear, dear friend to so many of us in Congress.

In the last 5 years I have been here on the floor for quite a few departing speeches from Members, people I considered friends. I have yet to come to one in which the Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Chairman of the Equality Caucus, the Speaker of the House, the former chairman of our caucus have all gathered, except for today. It is a reflection of just how special David Cicilline is, the reach and breadth of the support and friendships that he developed within the House Democratic Caucus, which I believe will last long after he has left this hallowed Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I say thanks to Mr. Cicilline, the gentleman from Rhode Island, for his service to our country. We will miss him, and we look forward to seeing him again.