Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, watching House Republicans is like watching a football team whose best plays are the punt and the block.

Now, I have tried to throw a few Hail Marys along the way, and I am glad that we blocked the bad Lankford amnesty bill, but we punted on needed FISA reforms.

We blocked the McConnell supplemental for now, but we punt, yet again, on needed spending cuts.

We blocked additional aid and additional U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine; and, indeed, we punted Kevin McCarthy who authorized $115 billion to Ukraine.

Be that as it may, here we gather to punt, yet again.

The last I checked, the Republicans actually have a majority in the House of Representatives, but you wouldn't know it, Madam Speaker, if you looked at our checkbook. We are all too willing to continue the policy choices of Joe Biden and the spending levels of Nancy Pelosi instead of showing the will and the courage to say that this woke and weaponized government has to be defanged, it has to be attacked, and it has to see reductions in spending.

Many Americans have lived most of their lives not actually paying a price for the national debt. However, because we are $34 trillion in debt and because we are on our way to $50 trillion in debt, the Americans who work hard all over this country are seeing higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, and higher interest rates, but all we seem to offer is low energy and low-T in the face of those mounting challenges.

We ought to be rejecting this CR. We ought to pass single-subject spending bills. We ought to vote for the spending cuts that this country desperately needs.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

To the extent that this is a tax bill, there are good provisions in it on business expensing for economic growth. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this is not a tax bill. This is a welfare bill masquerading as a tax bill. The Wall Street Journal was correct to identify the ways in which this legislation vastly expands the welfare state.

This is how the bipartisan agreement came together: If the Republicans were willing to give the Democrats what they wanted for illegal aliens to get massive subsidies and welfare, then the Democrats were willing to give the Republicans what they wanted on a bunch of business welfare.

The child tax credit, as currently contemplated, will be a massive pull factor to bring people into this country illegally, and we could have, as the majority party, demanded constraints to stop them from being able to use the money that way. Nevertheless, bipartisanship was more important than good policy.

As my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) noted recently, Mr. Speaker, if you aren't paying taxes and you get a refundable tax credit in the form of a check, that is not a tax cut. That is not even tax policy. That is just welfare. That is just giving people money who didn't initially pay it in, and a bunch of them are here illegally.

It is not just a welfare bill in that respect. It is also corporate welfare. Indeed, these tax credits they have put in there are so targeted, they are bought and paid for by the lobbyists who fund their campaigns and give them donations, and it is entirely wrong. We should have a flat tax code.

The R&D tax credits they are putting in are deeply misguided. They continue to distort the economy, and, frankly, it is just another flavor of a lot of the Green New Deal tax credits that you act like you are against, but, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case.

This is not a tax bill. It is a welfare bill in drag, and that may be appealing to some of the proponents.

Mr. Speaker, if my characterization of the child tax credit is intellectually dishonest, then I would love to hear the warrant behind that claim because none of my colleagues can state how a huge sum of this money is not going to end up in the hands of illegal immigrants.

When it comes to evaluating that context in the era of Trump versus the era of Biden, it is somewhat embarrassing that I would have to remind a Republican colleague that it is the Biden administration that has let in 10 million additional people which vastly blows out the cost of this particular endeavor.

Under Trump, we didn't have an open border, so there was less of a concern about drawing more people here illegally to this child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Okaloosa County School District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Amy Chavers Bowden, for her exceptional efforts in advancing youth education and dedication to positively impacting the lives of countless students at Antioch Elementary School.

A fourth-grade teacher, Ms. Bowden's reputation precedes her as a woman of motivation, kindness, inspiration, and most of all, an unwavering commitment to the betterment of her students. Her leadership with the Hope Squad, Drone Team, and Young Astronauts Club exemplifies her message that all children are capable of achieving success. Each Monday, the scent of freshly made hot chocolate fills her classroom as her students each contribute to their class newspaper, demonstrating elementary comradery made possible through a teacher who serves as a role model and leads by example. Ms. Bowden's aspiration to evoke joy in her students makes her beloved by her students.

I am proud to know that so many children in my district have had the opportunity to have been taught by Ms. Bowden. Her stated mission to change the world has certainly been achieved and her lessons of leadership are sure to remain through many generations to come. It is for these reasons that I congratulate her on this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I rise in opposition to this NDAA because there is a great deal of good in it, but only in Washington must we bring a bill to the floor so that we are able to militarily confront China while at the same time embracing the policies that make the United States more like China.

There is no desire on the part of our great Armed Services chairman, and even the Democrats we worked with, to have an extension of spying authorities put in this bill when we have already seen those authorities just totally abused, 278,000 violations of the existing law, as the FBI has queried information regarding Americans.

When the Obama-appointed inspector general was reviewing whether or not the administration was complying with existing law, they found out we were breaking the law 38 times an hour.

To extend the authorities for spying that were being violated so that people at the FBI could do queries on their neighbors, their coworkers, their ex-lovers, that does not belong in the National Defense Authorization Act. Maybe we would be able to stomach some short-term extension if the underlying bill looked a little more like the product we sent out of the House of Representatives.

With this NDAA conference report, you almost feel like a parent who has sent a child off to summer camp and they have come back a monster. That is what we have done. This bill came back in far worse shape.

We had concern over these social justice warriors that were making salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at DOD, so we put a cap on that at three times what a private or airman would make. We claim that that's still in the bill, but the Senate was able to erode that and say so long as that social justice warrior is assigned any other responsibility, they are able to blow through that cap and waste taxpayer money on something else that doesn't enhance our lethality or capability or survivability.

We have legislation to eliminate the chief diversity officer at DOD because that was the fountainhead of so many of these woke, bad ideas, and yet the House receded on that position.

Many of our colleagues were concerned that when you look at our military bases or installations, they were flying flags that weren't the American flag. They were flying the LGBTQ flag, the Black Lives Matter flag, whatever that flag is with all of those pink and black triangles in it. That desire that we had to fly the American flag and the flags of our service branches was also surrendered by the House of Representatives to the Senate.

We wanted a parents bill of rights in DOD schools so that you wouldn't get the strange material that goes into radical gender ideology or race ideology. That was abandoned by the House of Representatives.

So we also expressed a great deal of concern over the censorship that the DOD was funding through a lot of its alliances. We put in our bill a prohibition on marketing through those networks that have engaged in broad-scale censorship. Unfortunately, that was replaced with a report. Instead of stopping the money flowing to censorship through the DOD, we have just asked to be informed about it as it is happening, even though we already know it is happening. That is why we have conducted these investigations.

This bill is insufficient to deal with the structural challenges that we have at the Department of Defense where they have veered substantially left. There is good in the bill, but it does not deserve an affirmative vote with this just absolutely unnecessary and uncalled- for extension of spying authorities that we already know have been abused.

Madam Speaker, in the last round of debate, House Republicans were criticized for providing a pay-for for our plan to support Israel out of the IRS. The theory is that it is just totally unrelated, but a pay-for for the things we are doing, that is always related. It is only in Washington, certainly not in many of our State capitals, where you can have an ambition to go fund something and then not identify the offset that would naturally allow you to engage in that.

The only real substantive debate I have heard in favor of this bill is that it does good pay increases for our servicemembers. Undeniably, that has universal agreement within this body.

I think about the 8,600 servicemembers who were forced to separate from our military because of an ill-conceived, now withdrawn, vaccine requirement. We were told over and over again that there would be backpay, reparations, and restoration of rank for those people who were improperly told that they could not express their patriotism through military service because they didn't want to take an experimental vaccine. That is totally absent in this legislation.

In communities like mine that are military heavy, the 5 percent pay increase will be very welcome. Every one of our military families knows someone who now is not able to have their job and who has seen impacts on their spouses, their marriages, and their children because of this mandate. We ought to have really taken care of those great folks. We did not in this bill.

I am all about compromise. To me, compromise ought to reflect the work of the House and the Senate and then linking up those matters.

Neither the House nor the Senate version of this bill dealt with extending spying authorities, as my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) said. That was something that was added in. That is the process objection. The objection is not that we are unable to compromise on that which we present different views on. It is when a totally new issue just parachutes in and drops on what would otherwise be legislation we want to agree to.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Long Island crew is acting in bad faith, just exceedingly bad judgment. Here is why. Since the beginning of this Congress, there are only two ways you get expelled: You get convicted of a crime, or you participated in the Civil War. Neither apply to George Santos.

I rise not to defend George Santos, whoever he is, but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter.

Let's speak to due process. Mr. Santos hasn't been convicted of anything, but we haven't even moved to expel the people who have.

Mr. Bowman pled guilty to a misdemeanor for his little fire alarm stunt weeks ago. While the Ethics Committee is marching to throw George Santos out of Congress, they take no action as to someone who actually pled guilty to a crime? What is that all about?

Then, there is all this talk about, well, he could have testified to the Ethics Committee, and he didn't, so he had his due process. That belies the fact that he faces a trial. Had Mr. Santos testified before the Ethics Committee, an argument could have been made that he waived any of his rights that he would have had at trial, that any American would enjoy. It was a procedural double bind that shouldn't be held against Mr. Santos as some sort of adverse inference.

Let's also talk about this precedent. The fact pattern as to Mr. Santos is remarkably similar to the fact pattern of former Representative Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter used campaign money on girlfriends, trips, home improvements, and all sorts of personal lavishes. He was indicted for those crimes and continued to serve in Congress. He pled guilty to a number of those crimes and continued to serve in Congress. He was in Congress for, like, an additional pay period after having pled guilty to the very same things that Mr. Santos has been indicted for.

I think it is persuasive to me that Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nehls, two law enforcement officials with sterling reputations, are here not necessarily to defend Mr. Santos but to defend this precedent and this due process that is being shattered.

I was struck when the author of this resolution said the quiet part out loud. He didn't try to shoehorn the expulsion of George Santos into some existing construct or precedent. He said, yep, we are making a whole new precedent, and we are making whole new rules right now. However, he defends that by saying that the new rules are better, that it is a higher standard, so we should just throw away everything that has happened from the First Congress to the 118th because the new precedent is more robust. The problem is, it is a lower standard for due process without merit.

Mr. Speaker, whatever Mr. Santos did with Botox or OnlyFans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against Senator Menendez, who is holding gold bars inscribed with Arabic on them from Egypt while he is still getting classified briefings today. He is not getting thrown out of the Senate. He is getting classified briefings. He is under indictment for bribery, but because Santos was buying Botox and OnlyFans, we have to throw him out?

If George Santos is convicted, he ought to be expelled. Until then, it is an incredibly dangerous thing for people in Washington, D.C., to substitute their judgment for the judgment of voters.

Winston Churchill said that in a democracy people get the government that they deserve. Well, the people of Mr. Santos' district elected him. This is not some district in rural Mississippi with, like, one newspaper. This is New York City, and George Santos rolls in there, wins, and do you know what? It is between him and his voters, him and the justice system.

The fact that the Ethics Committee has done this incredible violation of precedent will do grave damage to this institution for many years to come because now there is no requirement for any conviction. There is a departure from the precedent from the Duncan Hunter matter and many others, and I fear that may indicate what lies ahead for the future of due process in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Chairman, the FBI wants a massive new complex for their Washington, D.C., area activities. They want to spend more than $300 million on that complex.

Though the FBI has an employee base that is about 2.3 percent of the United States military, Mr. Chairman, they are literally asking for something that is larger than the Pentagon for the FBI.

My amendment would disallow any planning, spending, or distribution of funds for that purpose. I don't believe that the FBI deserves a massive new headquarters or Washington field office.

The activities inside of Washington, the Greater Washington metro area, have really driven a lot of the investigative work we have done. It is not bad folks from the FBI out of some field office in middle America or elsewhere in the country. It is the Washington, D.C.-based activities that have pressured other field offices for no good law enforcement reason. It is the D.C.-based entities that have suppressed credible investigative leads into criminal conduct over the objections of other bureaus and offices, and they have initiated investigations into American citizens merely for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

They have attempted to entrap Members of the United States Senate by holding false classified briefings. That is the testimony we got from Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson.

They have also worked hard to censor factual information harmful to their preferred political candidates, notably the Hunter-Biden laptop story that the FBI based in the D.C. metro area was involved in cajoling censorship of.

Building a new headquarters would condone, reinforce, and enable the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's nefarious behavior. We shouldn't do it, and we should adopt this amendment to ensure that is the case.

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

Mr. Chair, it is not my grave concern that the FBI's building is crumbling. It is my grave concern that the civil liberties of Americans are crumbling. I wish we were more worried about that and less worried about whether or not we have new carpet and wallpaper at the FBI building.

My colleague from Arkansas says that the FBI headquarters is in a state of disrepair. Mr. Chair, it is the FBI itself that is in a state of disrepair.

While my colleague from Arkansas may be right that we may not always hate the FBI, how about while we are most concerned about the things they are doing we not go build them a new $300 million building.

My colleague says there needs to be a hearing. Let me tell you about the hearing that mattered to me. Frankly, many of my Democrat colleagues are also worried about civil liberties. That was the hearing where we learned that the FBI has conducted over 278,000 illegal queries on the FISA system, or the hearing that said that the Inspector General found that 38 times an hour these people were violating FISA.

The notion that we would stand here and defend them, frankly, is deeply disappointing. I think those folks deserve to sit in the rat- infested J. Edgar Hoover Building until they get their act straight with America's civil liberties.

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

Mr. Chair, where I think Leader Hoyer is correct is that this effort would be incomplete in the absence of major reforms to FISA and the other authorities that are abused, no matter who the people are. The people have changed and the corruption has remained the same at the FBI. Under Republican and Democrat leadership, we have seen consistent abuses of Americans' civil liberties. To take tax money away from our fellow Americans, who are the victims at times of these abuses, and then build a new center for the FBI seems deeply unwise to me.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I appreciate that clarification, and I don't think anyone would confuse his views with mine as it relates to the FBI.

Reclaiming my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the distinction, and I am grateful that there are a number of Democrats, like Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Nadler, who are working very closely with Republicans to try to reform these authorities so that people's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated. Doing that alongside creating some new $300 million monstrosity for the FBI, that is, quite literally, larger than the Pentagon, sends entirely the wrong message, and that would support adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Maria Gamboa, an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Interpreter in the Okaloosa County School District. As an employee with more than 25 years of service, Ms. Gamboa worked in Exceptional Student Education (ESE) at Crestview High School for 13 years before spending the past 14 years as an ESOL Interpreter at Pryor Middle School and now Choctawhatchee High School.

At Choctaw, Ms. Gamboa offers academic support both in the classroom and in the afterschool tutoring program. She provides the right level of encouragement while also holding students accountable for attending school and taking advantage of the opportunities which lead to graduation. Ms. Gamboa has also assisted in implementing a monthly English Language Learners (ELL) Parent Information Night to better inform families about high school life. Furthermore, she assisted in creating a weekly language acquisition class for any ELL family that wants to strengthen their English skills.

According to her principal, Michelle Heck, Ms. Gamboa has ``earned the respect, admiration, and love of our Choctaw staff because of her kind-hearted self, always making time to lend an ear to any and all who need someone to listen, bountiful amounts of patience and her endless generosity to our students, parents, and staff members alike.''

Ms. Gamboa is a mother to five Okaloosa County School graduates, all of whom have received college scholarships. She is a firm believer that every family deserves the opportunity to be equipped with the necessary resources to help their child succeed in their

academic life. She expressed her gratitude, saying, ``I am very blessed to be able to help Spanish speaking parents and students be successful in school.'' I, along with all of Northwest Florida, thank Ms. Gamboa for her hard work and dedication to her students and this community.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am privileged to recognize Ms. Gamboa for her contributions to Northwest Florida.

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

Mr. Chair, there is an eclectic attraction in my district in northwest Florida. It is called Crab Island but is actually not an island at all. It is a sandbar where people go and enjoy swimming, snorkeling, fishing, maybe a refreshment or even a hot dog or boiled peanuts.

Right now, we have a system with our local governments and our State government working in concert to manage Crab Island. It is all going really well, and my amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from playing, perhaps an excessive role, in the management of commercial services. It is a wonderful place, and as we say in the south, y'all come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's great interest in what is going on in Florida. Though we don't know each other well, I can only assume that if there were a small patch of land in Maine, I would be highly deferential as to what a local community in that congressional district might think about it.

I would inform the House that I have a resolution from the City of Destin where they speak to some of these concerns, but instead reflect on the value of the existing State and local cooperation to achieve those safer objectives.

With all due respect to the Concessions Act of 1998, which I am sure we would never want to violate the sanctity of, the result of what the Department of the Interior is trying to do in my community is going to put a lot of mom-and-pop local businesses out of business, and instead, it is going to constrain this to a Federal contracting requirement that no one in our community believes is going to enhance safety, but instead is going to limit the ability of folks to be able to enjoy the park in the manner in which they are doing safely now. So that is why I would ask for adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a school from my district, the Okaloosa Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medical (STEMM) Academy, on achieving the remarkable milestone of being recognized as a National Blue Ribbon School. Okaloosa STEMM Academy is one of only 13 schools from the State of Florida to earn this distinction and one of only 353 nationwide in 2023. This achievement is a testament to the teachers and staff's dedication to student success and their pursuit of excellence.

The Okaloosa STEMM Academy is an innovative middle school that provides a free and public education to sixth through eighth grade students in Okaloosa County with a curriculum focused on academic rigor and excellence. The STEMM Academy was established in 2012 as part of the Okaloosa STEMM Center. The curriculum has been specifically designed to enable students to transition to high school having completed numerous high school courses, including Algebra I Honors, Geometry I Honors, Physical Science Honors, Fundamentals of Web Design, and Earth Space Science Honors. I am proud that Northwest Florida is home to a multi-faceted academy for students interested in pursuing STEMM careers.

I, along with all of Northwest Florida, thank Principal Scheree Martin, the teachers, administration, and staff at Okaloosa STEMM Academy for their hard work and dedication to their students, families, and this community.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am privileged to recognize Okaloosa STEMM Academy on this incredible achievement.

Madam Speaker, it is with great regret and hopefully temporarily that I hereby remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 6116.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution I previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Oklahoma says that my colleagues and I who don't support Kevin McCarthy would plunge the House and the country into chaos. Chaos is Speaker McCarthy. Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.

The one thing that the White House, House Democrats, and many of us on the conservative side of the Republican caucus would argue is that the thing we have in common, Kevin McCarthy said something to all of us at one point or another that he didn't really mean and never intended to live up to.

I don't think voting against Kevin McCarthy is chaos. I think $33 trillion in debt is chaos. I think that facing a $2.2 trillion annual deficit is chaos. I think that not passing single-subject spending bills is chaos. I think the fact that we have been governed in this country since the mid-1990s by continuing resolution and omnibus is chaos. The way to liberate ourselves from that is a series of reforms to this body that I would hope would outlast Speaker McCarthy's time here, would outlast my time here, and would outlast either of our majorities.

Mr. Speaker, these are reforms that I have heard some of the most conservative Members of this body fight for and some of the reforms that we have been battling for that I have even heard those in the Democratic Caucus say would be worthy and helpful to the House--like open amendments and understanding what the budget is.

We have been out of compliance with budget laws for most of my life and most of many of your lives. By the way, if we did those things, if we had single-subject bills, if we had an understanding on the top line, if we had open amendments, if we had trust and honesty and understanding, there would be times when my conservative colleagues and I would lose. There might be a few times when we would win. There would be times when we would form partnerships that might otherwise not be really predictable in the American body politic, but the American people would see us legislating.

These last few days, we have suspended the momentum that we had established the week earlier when we were bringing bills to the floor, voting on them, and staying late at night working hard. That is what the American people expect. It is something Speaker McCarthy hasn't delivered. That is why I moved to vacate the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opening line of my colleague's speech was that Speaker McCarthy always overperforms expectations, but after tweeting ``bring it'' and after engaging in profane-laced tirades at House Conference, he just lost a motion to table. I wouldn't necessarily consider that overperforming expectations.

Time and again, I have heard my colleagues say: Well, he deserves it because he went through a tough Speaker contest. Let me let everyone know, he prevailed in that Speaker contest because he made an agreement to fulfill certain commitments to make this an open and honest process, and he has failed to meet those commitments. That is why we are here.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with my friend from Ohio's argument is that many of the bills he referenced as having passed are not law. We are on a fast track to an omnibus bill, and it is difficult to champion oversight when House Republicans haven't even sent a subpoena to Hunter Biden. It is hard to make the argument that oversight is the reason to continue when it sort of looks like failure theater.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing selfish about wanting a Speaker of the House who tells the truth. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sober, wise, or cautious about the path we are on. We are on a path to financial ruin if this House does not take a different posture, a different procedure, and yield toward different outcomes and a better future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to my remaining time.

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

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

I think I have caught the signal, too. The signal is for $33 trillion in debt, facing $2.2 trillion annual deficits. Our fellow Americans may be watching and wondering, how does that happen? How does the greatest country in the world have a process so broken that it would be laughed out of the rooms in the halls of the State legislatures where many of us come from?

Here is how it works. The law says we are supposed to have the very single-subject spending bills that my colleague referenced in the summer; that we are supposed to have that and move it. But there is a dirty little secret in this town, and that is, if you delay, if you hold the bills, if you make multiple contradictory promises--as Speaker McCarthy has done--and you back everybody up against shutdown politics, well, nobody wants to shut the government down. No one cheers for a shutdown and, of course, when people are backed up against shutdown politics, the decision calculus changes.

So year after year, decade after decade, we break the law, and we do the same thing. We pass a continuing resolution, then we pass another continuing resolution, and then it is either another continuing resolution or an omnibus bill or a series of minibuses that lump these disparate things together.

The American people want all of us to take votes on single-subject matters. They don't want to see these things all mushed together and logrolled. It was concerning to me to hear of a secret deal on Ukraine funding that would have logrolled more money with Ukraine with our southern border.

Now, how offensive is that to our Customs and Border Patrol, to our ICE, to the people that are suffering as a consequence of our border that some of my colleagues are only willing to stand up and fight for our border if they can send billions to Ukraine to fund their border, too?

Well, I have had enough of that, and that is why I brought this motion to vacate.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that the majority leader said in those remarks, except one thing. It is astonishing to hear any colleague give Speaker McCarthy credit for moving on to the single-subject appropriations bills.

As you heard my colleague Mr. Biggs say, that was never the plan from Speaker McCarthy. The week before we moved on to those single-subject appropriations bills, the plan was another CR. He pitched a CR. They tried to get us to vote for a CR, and a brave few said we are done governing by continuing resolution. We are here to eulogize the era of the continuing resolution. We will not do it. We will not pass it.

These bills can go. The spending may rise and fall as the years pass, but the notion that we are going to lump in the Department of Education and the Department of Labor with our military and our troops and our Border Patrol is fundamentally unserious, and I would suggest chaotic.

We cannot do that. It was only because we forced that to happen. By the way, if we continue with Speaker McCarthy, the appropriations process will go right back to what he wanted it to go back to--just a sideshow, just a puppet show, just something to keep the hamsters on the hamster wheel as they continue to back people up against a calendar, centralize power with the lobbyists and special interests that move all kinds of money through the leadership. That is how they get their way, and that is why the American people have been getting screwed decade after decade. I am not going to tolerate it anymore without a fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to solve problems, too, but we have decade after decade of history showing us that you don't solve any problems with continuing resolutions and omnibus bills. That creates more problems, more debt, more inflation, more pain for American families.

So the way to solve problems is to break the fever dream of governing by continuing resolution and omnibus bills and instead return to the very single-subject spending bills that we will only get if my resolution passes to vacate Speaker McCarthy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to hear from the principal architect of Mr. McCarthy's debt limit deal, but here is the reality: The only Republicans in America who believe that the debt limit deal was conservative are in this Chamber right now because all over America, Republicans think that when you negotiated that debt limit deal, they took your lunch money.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that if this House of Representatives has exceeded all expectations, then we definitely need higher expectations.

While it is heartwarming and kind that the Speaker calls people on their birthday and visits their district and congratulates them on their children, please know this isn't a critique of the individual. It is a critique of the job. The job hasn't been done. We have had multiple contradictory promises.

It is quite something, for those of you keeping track at home, the last three speakers you have heard opposing my resolution all voted for the debt deal. So if you believe that the debt limit deal that Speaker McCarthy brought into law was a good thing, maybe you agree with their perspective.

I think the debt limit deal was a terrible deal, and it really was the original sin of the McCarthy speakership, and it is one of the reasons I seek to vacate the Chair now.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says we have passed the strongest border bills in history. Well, guess what? Look at the border right now.

We didn't use sufficient leverage in the debt limit or in any other thing to actually get results on the border.

The border is a disaster; really something I don't think you are going to be campaigning on that you fixed the border.

Second, the gentleman said he streamlined regulations. What the gentleman from Louisiana doesn't tell you is that all of the regulatory reform he was just bragging about is waivable by the stroke of a pen of someone in the Biden White House.

Do you really think you have anything for that? It is a total joke.

Finally, the Welfare-to-Work that the gentleman from Louisiana said we have, the welfare programs that they said they streamlined with their Welfare-to-Work stuff, they are actually going to grow. While they did work requirements, they blew out those programs of expanded eligibility.

I am really glad my colleagues didn't put work requirements on Medicaid. It probably would have resulted in Medicaid expansion.

When it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership, who have--oh, boo all you want--who have hollowed out this town and have borrowed against the future of our future generations.

I will be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans, $10, $20, and $30 at a time. My colleagues can keep showing up at the lobbyists' fundraisers and see how that goes for you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I tried to get one of the three podiums on the Republican side, and my colleagues wouldn't let me have them, so they sent me over here.

Mr. Speaker, you know what, I will make this argument at any desk in this building, from the well, from the Chair. I will make it on every street corner in this country that Washington must change.

We have to break the cycle. We have to break the fever. I would hope, truly, that the reforms that we are fighting for are reforms that would last and be embraced and that would democratize power in this institution beyond the privileged few who back us up against shutdown politics and Christmases and deadlines in order to achieve their objectives.

Mr. Speaker, high inflation is on the verge of bankrupting American families. Our economy is breaking in half. A typical American family can't afford to buy a House in 99 percent of U.S. counties. Inflation is stealing more than $700 a month from working Americans; nearly $9,000 a year.

Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he has failed to take a stand where it matters; so if he won't, I will. I make no apologies for defending the right of every hardworking American to afford a decent life for themselves and their families, and we have a greater opportunity to do that and to build coalitions under new leadership.

We have to rip off the Band-Aid. We have to get back on a better course.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how this vote is going to go. Usually when a vote comes to this floor, it is pretty pre-determined. This one, I am not so sure.

I am sure that we have made the right argument: that this place deserves single-subject spending bills; that we should have 72 hours to read a bill; that something that spends more than $100 million shouldn't be put on the suspension agenda such that we can't amend it; and there shouldn't be secret side deals made on a continuing resolution to lump Ukraine in with border security.

That is not right for Ukraine or border security because it fails to give either of those issues the dignity that they would require.

We can return that dignity to this House. We can get back on a better path. We can have single-subject appropriation bills. We can set a budget, a budget top line. We haven't had a budget in this place since I was in high school.

Let's get a budget. Let's get our act together. Let's get on with it. Let's vacate the Chair, and let's get a better Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question: What was the secret side deal on Ukraine?

House Democrats and President Biden have said that as Speaker McCarthy was asking Republicans to vote for a continuing resolution so as to avoid having to take the Senate's plus-up in Ukraine money, that the Speaker of the House was actually cutting a side deal to bring Ukraine legislation to this floor with President Biden and House Democrats.

So let me get this straight: To extend Joe Biden's spending and Joe Biden's policy priorities, the Speaker of the House gave away to Joe Biden the money for Ukraine that Joe Biden wanted.

It is going to be difficult for my Republican friends to keep calling President Biden feeble while he continues to take Speaker McCarthy's lunch money in every negotiation.

The Speaker of the House has responded to these reports of a secret side deal on money for Ukraine, opaquely stating that he still wants to fund Ukraine and our border.

I have a few replies to this statement.

First, the Speaker's statement confirms the existence of a secret deal. I have talked to Members of our own leadership who have said they didn't even know that Speaker McCarthy was negotiating a secret side deal outside of our Conference, outside of his own leadership team for the sake of Ukraine.

Second, Ukraine has lost the support of a majority of the majority. The last time there was a freestanding Ukraine vote on this floor, it was last week--101 Republicans voted for it, 117 Republicans voted against it.

According to the Hastert rule, which Speaker McCarthy agreed to in January, you cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority on something as consequential as Ukraine. So for all the crocodile tears about what may happen later this week about a motion to vacate, working with the Democrats is a yellow brick road that has been paved by Speaker McCarthy, whether it was the debt limit deal, the CR, or now the secret deal on Ukraine.

Third, this is swampy logrolling. The American people deserve single- subject bills. I get that a lot of folks might disagree with my perspectives on the border or on Ukraine, but can we at least agree that no matter how you feel about Ukraine or the southern border, they each deserve the dignity of their own consideration and should not be rolled together where they might pass where each individually wouldn't?

This is what we are trying to get away from. This is the spirit of the January agreement we made with the Speaker. No more lashing these disparate issues together so that the American people's interests are subjugated here on the floor of the House.

Do you know how we should stand up for our border? Demand that the United States Senate take up our single-subject appropriation bill that funded the border. It created Republican unity. We voted for it. It has the policy demands that the continuing resolution that Speaker McCarthy advocated for on this floor did not.

Our DHS's funding bill requires E-Verify, and then hours later after we passed that, the Speaker wanted us to vote for a continuing resolution that didn't include E-Verify. Retreat is never a strategy to win anything.

Mr. Speaker, just tell us, what was in the secret Ukraine side deal? What commitments were made to President Biden to continue the spending of President Biden in exchange for doing things for President Biden? It is becoming increasingly clear who the Speaker of the House already works for, and it is not the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that these questions be answered soon because there may be other votes coming today or later this week that could be impacted by the answers to these questions. Members of the Republican Party might vote differently on a motion to vacate if they heard what the Speaker had to share with us about his secret side deal with Joe Biden on Ukraine. I will be listening. Stay tuned.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

Declaring the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives to be vacant.

Resolved, that the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives is hereby declared to be vacant.

Madam Speaker, the continuing resolution being offered today is a bad deal for Republicans. The entire premise of this continuing resolution is that if Republicans surrender on every single issue except the border that it will be good politics because we will force the Democrats to defend bad border policy.

However, Madam Speaker, surrender has been a virus that has afflicted my fellow Republicans for far too long. To prove the point, just look at the border policies that we are supposedly fighting for. The border policies that Republicans will argue for this morning represent a retreat from the border policies we took last night.

Last night, we said we wouldn't fund DHS unless E-Verify was passed because they had to take up H.R. 2. Now we are saying we will give Mayorkas and the Biden administration more money even if they don't pass E-Verify. Overnight, in the last 11 hours, the Republican border position has gotten weaker through this continuing resolution. That is why I am voting against it.

We cannot be serious about border security without E-Verify. I will fight for E-Verify. Eleven hours ago, the Republicans fought for E- Verify, and now the white flag of surrender.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has passed funding bills to fund our veterans, our troops, our Border Patrol, our State and foreign ops.

These are the core functions of government. The Senate should take up and pass those bills to make sure those folks are paid, and they should do it today.

The rule we are on now advances a continuing resolution that weakens the Republican position on strong border policies.

Just last night, we passed a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that was lashed to policy requirements at the Department of Homeland Security. They had to do certain things to fix the border to get the money, and one of those things was E-Verify.

Last night, we stood together and we demanded that E-Verify be included if Mayorkas wanted the money, and this continuing resolution that the rule we are on now would facilitate strips E-Verify and takes it out. Why would Republicans just overnight back away

from such a strong and necessary provision as E-Verify?

I will be voting against this continuing resolution because I want House Republicans to have the strongest position on the border. The American people will come with us on that. We have just got to have the courage to lead and not surrender.

I know big businesses don't want E-Verify, but we should want it anyway for the American worker.