Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8752, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cole, for his leadership throughout the fiscal year 2025 process and his support as we continue to take conservative appropriations bills to the floor.

I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Underwood, who worked with us in good faith on the bill despite some disagreements on policy. I thank them for the opportunity to kick off this appropriations season, if you will, and I am looking forward to getting started here.

Lastly, I express my gratitude to the staff on both sides for their tireless efforts. As we all know, without them, this would be a pretty tough thing and a much different thing to do.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is the border. It is the border. It is the border. We have heard about messaging. We have heard about managing, all of that sort of stuff, and still here we are.

The bill under consideration this morning provides $64.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. When we hear about turning our backs, that is an increase of $2.9 billion above the fiscal year 2024 level.

The bill prioritizes investments that make the border--remember, it is about the border--more secure and makes appropriate cuts to policies and programs that, quite frankly, we don't think work.

When we talk about value judgments and stuff like that, if you think the record on the southern border has been a successful thing for immigration, we respectfully disagree.

We have heard from the professionals in the field, our Border Patrol agents and CBP officers who are being crushed dealing with, dare I say, an unprecedented flow of migrants day after day. This bill supports them through real policy change, not just words.

Our colleagues across the aisle are content to treat the border crisis as an issue that can be managed. They throw huge sums of money at a problem the failed policies created. It does not work.

What do I mean? You have the flow across the border, and now it has become a problem everywhere else in the country.

What do school districts do? What do housing people do? What do law enforcement people do? It is fair to focus on the border, but the impacts are not just this is just kind of that deal there.

Law enforcement professionals don't want to manage the border; they want to enforce the law. They want to enforce not the law that we are talking about recently, but they want to enforce the law that has been on the books for a long time.

Dare I say there are some executive orders that may put the interpretation of the law at issue. They want to enforce the law for us to change the course, to end the chaos. If you think what is happening there is a nice, calm thing and it just needs more resources for management, I respectfully disagree.

My colleagues want to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to nonprofit organizations for transportation and other services that only further incentivizes the immigration rush we have got. If you can get across, we will take it from there, and what ``we will take it'' means is giving additional services for transportation.

Do nonprofits reduce encounters or deter anyone from crossing illegally? No, they don't. This enables all that, so we cut funding for that program.

You have heard about border management and shelter services. That is a couple of billion dollars. The numbers are right. Quite frankly, that is one of the funding sources that has been used to transport people all around the country, sometimes on airlines, sometimes in the middle of the night, but nonetheless to manage--we have got all these people here, and we have got to get them spread out as soon as possible.

Madam Chair, it is time for plain talk. We zero that account out. Oh, my God, you did what? Yep. Do any of us think the Senate will leave it at zero? No.

While we are talking about our colleagues in the Senate, this bill last year got zip in the way of--how about this policy or that policy. None. It is a big win for you, I guess, if you are on that side of the fence.

Guess what? We are going to create some things where if you want some

money back for that and you want it restricted so it isn't a slush fund to implement policies that are not on the books in terms of statute or regulation, then guess what, that is zeroed out, as are all of the funds for nonprofits. The criticism there is spot on. It is all seen as a way to facilitate huge amounts of people coming over and processing them away from the border as soon as possible.

It is not border cities. They are hardened or whatever; not that they don't need help. It is cities and counties across the country. The answer, according to 3 years' worth of record-high illegal immigration, in our opinion, is a resounding no, so we cut that funding.

Last year, CBP recorded 3.2 million encounters. To put it in perspective, that is about 11 times the population of the largest city in my district. That is just at the southern border in 1 year.

Last year, we funded $1.7 billion for tents to process an unprecedented number of aliens that continue to cross between ports of entry under this administration's open-border policies.

Has spending billions of taxpayer dollars for processing tents along the southern border just to release aliens into the interior at a rapid pace reduced illegal immigration at all? Quite the contrary. In this bill, we eliminated that funding.

In the middle of an election year, the administration just announced a proclamation to shut down the border if encounters between the ports of entry reach a certain level. We have been beyond those levels for a while now. That is quite an announcement.

I heard somebody earlier speak about this is about messaging. I guess in some areas, it is absolutely about messaging.

Oh, by the way, all of those previous administration policies, such as shelter in place and stuff like that kind of kept things to a cooperative between two countries and at some sort of manageable level. No, those are all out the door at the beginning of this. That is why this bill invests in tried-and-true methods of securing the border that men and women in the field are asking for: more agents, more detention beds, more technology, and--I know this is bad--physical barriers.

This bill makes the following border security investment: sustains funding for 22,000 Border Patrol agents, $300 million for border security technology, which is a record in that area if somebody thinks anybody is turning their back on anybody. That includes autonomous surveillance towers, mobile surveillance platforms, counter-tunnel equipment, and a significant investment in counter-drone capability. There is $600 million for a border wall because we know physical barriers work. Finally, there is $305 million in nonintrusive inspection equipment and upgrades so that we can detect fentanyl at our ports of entry. That is right. This bill does that.

In addition to our efforts at the border, the bill includes funding for critical immigration enforcement efforts such as $3.1 billion to support 50,000 detention beds for ICE. This is 8,500 more beds than were funded last year and 16,000 more than this administration asked for.

Yes, we have a disagreement on how many is enough.

There is $822 million for flights and ground transportation for ICE to execute its statutory authority to remove more than 1.4 million migrants who are still in this country despite having final orders of removal. In case anybody didn't catch that, that is to transport people south, not north, east, and west.

There is $60 million to hire more than 250 new law enforcement officers to investigate transnational criminal activity and keep our communities safe from those who seek to do us harm. Translation: fentanyl. Those folks are here to work that issue which, last I heard, was evasive, pervasive, and needs more help.

The bill also makes critical investments outside the southern border. For TSA we provide $178 million to speed up computed tomography screening device efforts at the Nation's airports. This is new technology that is available that has been rolled out at some airports, but, frankly, the administration had it on a 15-year funding cycle. By the time all of our airports get that, I am sure there will be new and better technology that will make this obsolete.

What does the bill do, Madam Chairman?

It puts it on a 5-year cycle. It gets that out to the airports and makes the flying public safer. We doubled the requested amount to pursue those things.

Then we get to China. As we continue to grow in terms of having to meet the challenge of China's military, economic, and political influence in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. must have a persistent presence in the region.

This bill expands Coast Guard operations in the Indo-Pacific with additional capacity and capability to include $335 million for four fast response cutters to increase deployments in the region, $60 million for service life extension to enable the Coast Guard to deploy another medium endurance cutter, and $4.2 million for increased operations funds for the Coast Guard to interact and conduct exercises with our allies in the Indo-Pacific so that we are ready to go if we need to because we practiced with our friends.

The bill funds the core responsibilities of the department and protects the homeland. What it doesn't do is fund the failed policies that further contribute to chaos at our southern border.

Madam Chairman, that is how you really support the hardworking men and women of DHS protecting the Nation.

We need to change course on the border. We sincerely believe that. Interestingly enough, so do many mayors of large cities across the Nation regardless of their political affiliation.

We need to change that course not through gimmicks but through real policy and funding changes. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1316, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, the bipartisan en bloc amendment before you is comprised of 28 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

This en bloc amendment contains proposals that will strengthen the underlying bill. I want to highlight just a few.

It would provide additional funding to bolster investigations for exploited children within Secret Service and Homeland Security Investigations.

It highlights the Coast Guard's ongoing need for assets, infrastructure, and maintenance funding. It emphasizes the importance of nonintrusive inspection equipment for CBP ports of entry to improve detection of fentanyl and other opioids that plague communities across our country.

It increases funds for FEMA grant programs for firefighters and other first responders and highlights the importance of grants that fund physical security improvements for nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attack.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their participation in this process, I urge Members to support this bipartisan en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my colleague.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, here is a little history, and you can use it however you like.

In the 2024 appropriations bill, we cut CISA $15 million, and it was because of this switchboarding issue. I agree that sometimes you want to get somebody's attention. Appropriations is money. That was done this last time.

As we look at what this agency has been doing since then--and I appreciate the history. The history is strong and warrants attention, and I think we dealt with that the last time. Oversight is an ongoing and continuing thing. When I sit here and look at this and say: We are going to flat fund them. That is the proposal. I say: Well, how are you going to do that? Where is that funding going to come from?

Just the standard, there you go, you are flat funded, at a time when their mission domestically in terms of infrastructure, whether that is utilities, communications or any number of things--I mean, in the media, it is like if you are going to buy a car, somebody hacked the outfit that does all that cyber stuff to make it easier to do. If you are going to go to a casino, those folks have been hacked.

The mission is growing. You say: Well, who is the mission? What is that about? That is not about our friends, Mr. Chair. That is about folks who do not wish us well, so Russians, Chinese, all that other sort of stuff.

I would be more comfortable with this if there was a trigger saying, if we fund that and you do this, we are going to come and get some money. I would be more comfortable with this if it were like: Here is where you are going to take it from. It is a funny time to be telling the folks who are in charge of cybersecurity in the non-DOD sectors: We are going to flat fund you. I do not believe that money is the answer to every problem that we come across. This mission has never been more challenging.

I think the oversight has been good under this Director, and quite frankly, from recent history they are headed the right way. It doesn't mean you take your eyes off of them. To go back and say you are flat funded, quite frankly, I think it is a curious time.

Mr. Chair, reluctantly, I don't support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the Shelter and Services Program is a failed program. It does nothing but facilitate the administration's self- created policy crisis on our border.

It is interesting to hear the discussions in terms of now that they are here, we should do something and skip over the whole issue of what has happened in the last 36 months?

It is undeniable that the numbers are significantly larger. Once you are here, we have to focus on what we do.

When you look at shelter services, we are renting tents. By the way, it is a single vendor. It is not even put out for bid. We spend over a billion something a year just for tents.

While it is nice to talk about how we should be good stewards of whoever happens to show up, to ignore how they came to be here in such massive numbers in the last 36 months, to me, it is a bit--and you can fill in the blank.

What began as a $30 million effort has ballooned to a $650 million grab bag for nongovernmental organizations to swiftly resettle migrants across the border illegally into our country.

Even large city Democrat mayors are screaming: We can't sustain this. We should not be spending money on programs that incentivize illegal immigration.

This amendment would directly undercut border security by reducing funds for border wall construction by $600 million.

The men and women in the field have told us walls work, and it is time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to accept that fact.

This amendment would also cut immigration enforcement efforts by $100 million. Somebody earlier said: Hey, we are turning our backs on Border Patrol. Really? A hundred million bucks is a pretty good look at somebody's back.

That significantly reduces our ability to remove these migrants that no longer have a legal basis to remain in the country.

Remember the backlog that requires over a million dollars to get folks who have failed the test for claiming asylum.

By the way, there are those who pose a risk. I won't repeat what other people have and will talk about. Instead of allowing this administration to continue to positively manage the unmitigated flow of migrants entering our country without consequence, this bill proposes funding and policies that address the crisis by empowering Federal agents and officers to do their jobs and not spend money on folks that enable a political agenda of this administration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, clearly, this is one of the differences between the two sides of the aisle.

This amendment is a double whammy. It weakens the border through lack of physical investment, physical improvement, and capital improvement.

I agree with what my colleague from Illinois said. They can't handle it with the present levels of funding with what is coming across the border. The last thing we need to do is try to put more money into dealing with self-imposed impacts that are avoidable.

I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congresswoman Stefanik to offer and support amendment No. 56.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering it.

Our Conference has been quite clear about standing with Israel in their fight against a brutal and inhumane terrorist organization that not only committed the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust but continues to hold innocent men, women, and children as hostages.

I also recognize the Jewish community has been the target of increasing anti-Semitism, which was one of the reasons for the amendment that we did earlier regarding supplementing FEMA's program for protection against bigotry.

Bigotry has no place in America. It certainly has no place in the Department of Homeland Security.

Nejwa Ali is a DHS immigration adjudication officer. She was exposed celebrating the October 7 terrorist attack online. It was later revealed that she previously worked for the Palestine Liberation Organization, also known as the PLO, which some people would say has a troublesome reputation, to put it kindly. Their reputation is in the tank when it comes to anti-Semitic policies and things like that.

During the budget hearing this last April, Secretary Mayorkas confirmed for us that she was still employed and on paid administrative leave in April, and the Department confirmed to my staff within the last 2 weeks that this continues to be the case. This is unacceptable. The Department has had more than 8 months to investigate and terminate this employee with cause pursuant to the applicable civil service regulations.

While the Secretary and Biden administration refuse to do the right thing, I invite the Members of the House of Representatives to terminate this employee. We must do the right thing and act with urgency to force their hand.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I will just put on the Record that I associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Tiffany, and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4364, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 756, I call up the bill (H.R. 4364) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The legislative branch bill is what we do to ourselves. We don't need the President's budget. This is what the House, in its wisdom, does for spending with respect to the House accounts and also some accounts we share with the Senate--Capitol Police, Congressional Budget Office, other agencies like that.

As we look at what we are doing here in the context of this appropriations season, the amount of money that is spent on this represents about a 4.7 percent cut from the previous budget year for purposes of the legislative branch. It gets a little bit less when you add the Senate in, but the House has done its job in terms of leading by example.

Now, you may say, how have you done your job? Let me tell you this: What we have done with respect to Members' office budgets, committee budgets, and some of the support functions--for instance, in the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General Accountability Office--we have left those accounts at or near what their previous levels were.

Some of them enjoy modest increases, but if you care about constituent services, if you care about doing a good job of being able to hold the Senate's feet to the fire, the White House's feet to the fire, or the people on the other side of the aisle's feet to the fire, you need resources to do that.

The time has never been more important than it is now for us to be able to do our jobs in a way that is appropriate for the challenges that confront our country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss in not saying thank you, so I will follow the lead of my esteemed ranking member and thank him and his staff as well as my staff for the way we were able to conduct the committee's business. Even though we disagreed on many things, we weren't disagreeable about it, which, some days, is quite a unique thing in this business. My hat is off to them, and my thank-you is on the record for the help from everybody on both sides.

I will cover a couple of areas in the spirit that the committee worked. My colleague has mentioned the DACA program, which is, frankly, something that, while we may have some disagreements on it, overall, we may agree on more than we disagree. However, as the clerk indicated, this is the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. When we are talking about issues that deal with immigration or the DACA program or anything else, that is the appropriate jurisdiction, in most cases, of the Judiciary Committee.

Therefore, the folks standing up on either side of you, Mr. Speaker, from the Parliamentarian's Office go through that drill and figure out the appropriate jurisdiction for this bill. We came to the conclusion that it wasn't. It doesn't mean that we disagree on a lot of that stuff, but nonetheless, you can't do that in the Legislative Branch bill, so we didn't.

On the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, I am not going to go through what happened in that office over the last few years. I will just say this: It was created by a rule in a previous Congress.

In exercising our appropriate oversight authority in seeing how that money was spent, I will just say that there was a sincere belief that that was not what was intended. When we talk about retreats, gift cards for employees, office bling, and multiple other things, it is not that the mission isn't important. It is, which is why the mission was preserved and moved under the supervision of the Chief Administrative Officer for the House, and an appropriate budget to do that work is fine.

There was part of a reorganization, which now puts them under a different office that is a subset of the Chief Administrative Officer for the House. However, to continue on in a largely unsupervised, autonomous role, where the use of funds was not impressive, the committee thought that it was appropriate to maintain the mission but change the structure for more supervision.

Also, when we talk about staff security, my colleague, the ranking member, is absolutely right. It is a concern for everybody. What the committee has done was say that we don't want to just throw a bunch of money at it and say go do good things with security. We wanted to have a plan.

I will tell you this: Each office can designate one of their district offices for planning. My colleague's district is in the Big Apple downtown. Mine is a long way away from there. One size doesn't fit all, so we wanted to be a little thoughtful about that. That is why we deferred from just going in whole hog.

You need to know that the Office of the Sergeant at Arms will now provide cybersecurity. This was done after the committee adjourned. It will now provide cybersecurity support to offices that ask for it.

By the way, my figures indicate there are 364 Members who have availed themselves of some form of funding through the Office of the Sergeant at Arms for security for those offices.

I look forward to continuing that when we get plans that are appropriate for the settings that those district offices are in so we can make a rational, well-based, intelligent decision on how to spend that money.

Mr. Speaker, while we may not be in agreement over the amounts we are spending on each one, I don't know if there is a lot of disagreement on the mission. It is just how much emphasis it gets and how we use taxpayer dollars in a responsible manner to go ahead and pursue those goals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess since we are going to stay on it for a minute, I will go ahead and stay on it.

Nobody is opposed to diversity or inclusion. Here are some of the reasons why this office was focused on. This bill that you have before you, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with administrative restructuring to streamline human resources activities consistent with the House Committee on Administration. Bringing the best person for the job in any agency or office under this bill is what we are trying to encourage.

There are currently multiple staff support offices focused on human resources that can be reorganized and streamlined into one. The Chief Administrative Office is consumer focused

and is best suited to create a House-wide office of talent and development. That is a new office that is created under this bill, which, by the way, has the mission of the old ODI.

ODI was created under House rules as its own office but will be moving to the reproposed CAO to become a part of the new office of talent and development. By this restructuring, we expect to increase accessibility to resources provided to House staff by creating a one- stop shop while also saving millions by streamlining duplicative efforts. Not only will the reorganization make activities more efficient, but it will help with oversight.

Now, let's talk about the Capitol Police for a minute. Yes, there were cuts in the requested budget for Capitol Police, but let's talk about uniformed personnel. Let's talk about the Intelligence Division. Let's talk about what the Capitol Police do to protect our campus and our operations. By the way, that is leadership details, as well.

When we talk about all those functions, all of their uniformed officer positions have been fully funded. I will say that again: fully funded. Now, it takes a while to recruit, vet, and train a Capitol Police officer. It is not one of those things where you throw the switch and say we need 500 or 600 more so that we are at our full complement of around 2,200.

It takes a while to train them in the academy before we turn them loose on the job. For the ones you see that they are fully trained, fully vetted, and ready to go, that takes time. It is not a budget function. They were fully funded for that.

We also maintain their intelligence functions, and we also maintain their protective detail functions. There were cuts to the Capitol Police budget, but not in those areas. I will also point out that some of the cuts were in funds that they weren't able to spend in this cycle anyhow.

As we are looking for savings to do the best job in terms of budget responsibility, we also wanted to recognize the reality that if you can't spend it in this cycle, let's not keep it in this cycle.

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate that those were not things that were in a MAGA rush to do this, that, or the other sort of thing. It was trying to be responsible with the legislative branch allocation that we have, which, by the way, is four-tenths of 1 percent of all spending. That doesn't mean that because it is that, we don't care about it. It means we need to do our part, too.

Similarly, the part that you didn't hear is that MRAs were kept the same so Members can keep doing their thing. Committee accounts on both sides were kept the same so Members could keep doing the committees' work on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, in the context that we live in, we think it was the responsible way to lead by example.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side?

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a few areas covered, and so I will try to be brief. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleague from New York for his collegiality and professionalism in the way that we have gone through this process this year and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Architect of the Capitol, their top ten projects were funded. I know there has been some discussion about it. We didn't pick them. We asked them to pick them, and so they did.

In these times, when we are running deficits that are in the t neighborhood, not the b neighborhood, I don't think it is inappropriate to say we probably ought to look at some of the largest areas that we spend money on. When you look at the leg branch allocation, that pie chart, the biggest slice of the pie in the whole thing, other than running our offices and our committees and paying our employee benefits, is Architect of the Capitol.

Give us your ten top priorities. I don't think that is partisan. I think that is responsible fiscal management. You can keep moving forward, but it is not like we don't have to eventually pay those bills.

The Sergeant at Arms office, as I have indicated--and I won't spend a lot of time on it--is there and funded under this bill for cybersecurity and for one district office. If you have multiple ones, that doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you have to submit a plan, and we have to talk about how we deal with one district versus another based upon the realities on the ground of making that district office secure.

Maybe it is a panic button. Maybe there is something else depending on that. I don't think it is irresponsible for Americans to expect the people who are responsible for spending their money to ask that we ask a few questions before we just say, Go do what you think you need to, and we will figure out a way to pay for it. That won't work.

They want to make an exception for the House of Representatives that isn't there for most other folks. We are not going to do it. We need to deal with DACA comprehensively, and we should, and I will be there at the first meeting, the middle meeting, and the last meeting to deal with them.

As a matter of fact, in previous Congresses, I have supported some DACA measures, which, quite frankly, weren't in compliance with what some people think a good Republican ought to be doing or whatever, but it was trying to solve a problem. It does not solve the DACA problem by carving out a tiny exception for Congress to be able to pretend like the rules on DACA shouldn't apply to us just like they do everybody else, so that is why we are at where we are at.

Finally, I hadn't wanted to do this, but since this is an appropriations subcommittee and we talk about money and we are worried about the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, let me tell you why it was decided to move it. It spent $15,000 on a staff retreat at the Salamander, a luxury resort in Middleburg, Virginia; spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on customized swag, including windbreakers; spent tens of thousands of dollars on partisan diversity events we talked about not being partisan for Black History Month, Women's History Month, as well as $25,000 for racial equity group training.

The office went over a year without a director as House Democrats failed to fill the position and even put one of their own staffers down there temporarily in an acting capacity while still serving as the assigned oversight staffer for House admin Democrats, a clear conflict of interest.

It used taxpayer dollars to give away gift cards to staff for attending their programming; spending that is not allowed in any other context, committee or personal office budgets, and which could raise ethics questions. It is not like somebody wanted to be mean to somebody because they had a political disagreement. This is fiscal irresponsibility and needs to be addressed.

I will finish with this: We addressed the oversight problem, which appropriations does, but kept the mission intact in the Chief Administrative Officer.

With that, I would hope that Members would see their way clear to support this bill as a logical step for leading by example, but not basically handicapping us.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee which has very specific jurisdiction over Member pay, I want to say plainly and unambiguously, in the 70 pages in this thing, directly or indirectly, there is nothing that will lead to a Member pay raise. That will be next week when it is appropriately considered on the floor in terms of cost of living or other things.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. With all due respect, the definition of a CR is you go forward. There is nothing to block in going forward with last year's language. That language still applies. Thank you, good morning, and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some indication of concern because the bill on the floor lacks language to prohibit a cost-of- living increase that doesn't exist, that was not given, and which has no appropriation in the existing fiscal year budget.

Normally, that would be the end of the discussion. However, I guess, being generous here, out of an abundance of caution and respect for those bill-drafting experts in the Senate, fixing that to include the Senate's genius language in this measure is something that is eminently doable in short order unless it becomes midnight because we have to have a couple more September State of the Unions.

Therefore, even though it was not included in our legislation, even though there is no existing COLA or appropriation for it, if that is the only thing--I am going to say that real slowly--if that is the only thing that is wrong, then it is eminently fixable for that belt-and- suspenders insurance policy for those who would support the bill but for the lack of that language.

We shall see.

Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2023, the Bonanza Casino in Reno will celebrate its 50th anniversary. In anticipation of this major milestone, I would like to highlight the contributions this family operated business brings to our community and recognize the leadership of one of its original owners and current partner, Russ Sheltra.

The Bonanza Casino is one of Northern Nevada's most successful gaming properties, but its beginnings were quite humble.

As a student at the University of Nevada, Russ Sheltra worked at the local Food King. After graduating with a degree in business, Russ bought the Food King with no formal contract--just an agreement etched out on the back of a napkin. Russ turned the Food King into his V&T Market.

In 1973, he made the decision to transform the V&T Market into the Bonanza Casino when another supermarket was built across the street. The casino thrived, quickly becoming a favorite for locals. Today, the casino has nearly 400 slot machines and two successful restaurants.

Russ's son, Ryan, now works alongside his father in the family business. Both Russ and Ryan believe in the importance of giving back to the community that has given them so much.

For the past 22 years, the Bonanza Casino has provided multiple $1,500 college scholarships to graduating students at North Valleys High School.

Additionally, the Bonanza Casino supports the mission of the Prostate Cancer Foundation by hosting the ``Cruisin' for the Cure'' car show, a fundraiser to raise money for prostate cancer research. To date, the Sheltra family and Bonanza Casino has donated over $165,000 to the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, as the Bonanza Casino celebrates its 50th year of operations, I want to thank Russ Sheltra for his lifetime of commitment to Northern Nevada, and this Nation. His ingenuity and dedication serves as an inspiration to us all.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 13, 2023, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sky Tavern, a local nonprofit that is celebrating the 75th season of their Junior Ski Program.

Located just 30 minutes from Reno, Sky Tavern was one of the area's earliest ski resorts. Motivated by her belief that sports were good for children, local skier and schoolteacher Marce Herz convinced the resort owners to begin an affordable learn-to-ski program in 1948.

Since then, Sky Tavern's Junior Ski Program has taught over 100,000 area youth how to ski and snowboard.

Sky Tavern has switched hands a few times over the decades; most recently in 1991, when a group of dedicated parents formed the current non-profit organization that manages the Junior Ski Program and maintains the property. Today, the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Program is the oldest and largest volunteer staffed ski school in the United States.

Notable alumni of the program include David Wise, Olympic gold medalist in the halfpipe, and Tamara McKinney, one of the top American alpine racers.

While this program has turned out some of our nation's best skiers, I would suggest that Sky Tavern's most significant achievement has been to make skiing, snowboarding, and other winter sports more accessible for local children.

Winter sports are a way of life in northern Nevada. From keeping the prices low to helping children with disabilities enjoy the slopes alongside their peers, Sky Tavern has reached countless children who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to participate in this great northern Nevada tradition.

I commend the team at Sky Tavern for carrying on Marce Herz's noble vision and positively impacting the lives of Nevada's children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my Happy Birthday wishes to Mr. David Fulstone, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on Saturday, April 1, 2023.

David Hill Fulstone was born on April 1, 1923, in San Francisco, California as the second of five children to the late Fred and Dr. Mary Fulstone. Raised in Nevada's Smith Valley on the family sheep ranching operation, the values of hard work and service were instilled in David at an early age. Throughout his youth, he worked as a ranch hand, and especially loved sheep camp.

He was also the star of the Smith Valley Bulldogs basketball team, before graduating in 1942. After high school, David pursued his passion and bought his own farm, growing hay, garlic, and onions.

In 1945, David married his best girl and forever dance partner, Angelina Margaroli. They were faithfully married for 63 years until

Angelina's passing in 2008. Over the years, they were blessed with two children, DeeAnn Fulstone and David Hill Fulstone II, and four grandchildren.

David was an active member of the Farm Bureau, traveling across the country to many of the annual meetings and advocating on behalf of Nevada's farmers and ranchers. He even received the Farmer of Year Award, the result of his tireless support of the agriculture community.

While David retired from farming in 2010, he continued to love gardening and often shared the rewards of his labor with everyone in town.

David's contributions to his community go beyond farming. From becoming the longest and oldest member of the Yerington Rotary Club to serving as a board member of the Lyon County Hospital Council, northern Nevada has benefited greatly from his time and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me and the people of Nevada in honoring this outstanding citizen and family man on his 100th birthday.

Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 409, I mistakenly voted NAY when I intended to vote YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 25) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the Honorable Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator from the State of Nevada, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 26) authorizing the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honorable Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator from the State of Nevada, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of U.S. Mint Director David J. Ryder as he prepares to depart the Mint.

As a Boise State Broncos alum, Director Ryder has served with distinction in both the government and corporate worlds.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to serve as the 34th Director of the U.S. Mint. He served until 1993. In 2017, he was nominated by President Trump for a second tenure as Mint director.

Madam Speaker, that was something the Bushes and the Trumps agreed upon.

Under Director Ryder's leadership, the Mint has introduced more new products than ever before. The Mint's bullion and numismatic programs reached their highest levels of revenue in over 10 years. The Mint's customer base grew to more than a half a million people--530,000, an increase of over 100,000 in 2 short years.

I was particularly impressed by Director Ryder's leadership when we worked together on the 2021 Morgan and Peace Commemorative Silver Dollars program, which produced 875,000 Morgan silver dollars and 200,000 Peace silver dollars, all under the 2021 date.

Carson City and New Orleans mintmarks were resurrected for the first time in years, even though those Mints had been closed by using them in a privy mark. Collectors went nuts, and rightfully so. The program netted over $30 million for the U.S. Treasury and profits from this program when they all sold out in less than 20 minutes.

As he moves on to greener pastures, I wish Director Ryder success in all future endeavors he takes on. I thank Director Ryder for his all- American performance as the 39th Director of the United States Mint.

Madam Speaker, although it pains me to do this as a proud University of Nevada Wolf Pack alum, Director Ryder, thank you for your service again, and go Boise State Broncos.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life and memory of my friend, Major General Robert T. Herbert, of the Nevada Army National Guard.

An adopted Nevadan, Bob began a 42-year career in the U.S. Army in 1975 at the age of 18. After serving along the East-West German border, Bob moved to Nevada as a test pilot at the age of 25. Later in his career, Bob served as senior policy adviser and director of appropriations for Senator Harry Reid, from 2001 to 2017.

Bob loved anything with a loud engine, having accrued more than 7,000 flight hours as a pilot of both fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. He loved to ride his collection of motorcycles, took great pride in his customized truck, and was in the process of rebuilding a Pontiac Firebird.

Both as a civilian and a soldier, Bob was respected and admired by anyone he interacted with, myself included. Simply put, Bob Herbert was an all-American consensus at everything he tried.

I offer my condolences to his wife, Karen, his parents and family, and anyone else who was lucky enough to call him a friend, including you, Madam Speaker. We will miss you, General.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Bob Gastonguay, who has been with my office since I was elected in 2011.

Prior to his first retirement, Bob had a long and successful career in telecommunications as the executive director of the Nevada State Cable Telecommunications Association.

Why did he come out of retirement? He wanted a Federal job.

No matter the difficulties that came with serving as the face of my front office, Bob has been the perfect person to greet people or take their calls. He greets everyone with a warm welcome, and shows them respect, and makes them feel heard.

As a new member of the octogenarian club, Bob hasn't let his age slow him down. He is always the first one in, constantly on the move, and always striking up a conversation with whomever he meets.

In addition to his long career, Bob raised a family of two sons, a granddaughter, and three great-grandchildren with his loving wife of 60 years, Barbara.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Bob for his service to Nevada and to the country.