Floor Statements

If the gentleman would yield?

I don't know if you talked about disability, where we have gotten the money for the increase in disability, how we are making up for that, what the growth of that number looks like, and what the plan for the future is.

Where do we get that money?

Will the gentleman yield?

Are you talking about, to be clear, crashing the cost of healthcare?

You are talking about bringing down substantially, almost cataclysmically----

That is fine, but substantially, the magnitude. That money is going somewhere right now.

Wherever that is going, those folks want that money.

It is all borrowed money.

So who is going to be unhappy if we do that?

I am not going to hold my breath.

Of course I do. We have fought bitterly. I mean, even if you just look at the last few years here since the pandemic, the pandemic was unexpected, decisions were made, and in hindsight we obviously made some wrong choices.

Be that as it may, it was expensive. People were out of work. The government forced them out of work, forced them to close their businesses. It was only right, since the government had the authority and the power to do that, to make them as whole as possible.

Now, we can debate that as long as we want to, but subsequent to the end of the pandemic, it should have been reasonable for the people in this room on either side of the aisle to say: Well, let's just reset back to prepandemic.

Believe it or not, at that time, if we had just gone back to that number, the budget would have balanced.

We would actually have taken in enough revenue to pay for the things that we were buying, but a substantial portion of this body, unfortunately, my friends, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, said: No, no, no. We are going to keep spending now at the pandemic level even though the pandemic is over.

Right. It does.

Of course, I have heard it. I have heard it ever since I have been here. There is always some reason: We have a slim majority. We don't have a majority at all. We don't have 60. We don't have the Presidency. We have this House, not that body. It is the courts. There is always some reason to say we can't do it.

I was in a committee hearing today talking about waste and abuse on foreign affairs. I found out that we send money to Nepal to support atheism. We send some of your money to Nepal, which is a highly religious society, to support atheism.

What I am told is: Well, not all bills are perfect. Nobody agrees with that, but we had to get the bill passed.

Well, somebody agreed with it. It ended up in there.

Somebody wanted that, so I am supposed to go along with that. The people that I represent that wake up early in the morning and go to work and pay their taxes, their money is going for that when they can't afford their electricity bill, their food bill, or their daycare bill. It is insane.

This whole thing about a wide-open border, not only can they not afford to pay the bills, but their kids can't even get jobs now coming out of high school because they are competing with people who are here illegally who will take

those jobs where you start out, where the only skill you have, Mr. Roy, is, I can show up on time with a good attitude. That is the skill I had when I was 13 or 14 years old, right? That is the skill I had when I started.

You start out doing things that maybe a lot of people don't want to do, but now there are other people in this country with a work permit. Your kids can't even get started anymore. That is the insult upon injury.

You are being taxed out of your homes. You can't afford your bills. Other people are taking your work. You are being told to sit down and shut up and just take it, whether you are in Congress or, Heaven forbid, you are at home and you are watching on TV and you are saying: What do I do about any of this? I told my Representative, and they said they can't stop it.

Mandated by the government.

Like the kill switch.

I do agree. I do agree with that completely. Protecting that, and, of course, what we are seeing right now is the protection or the attempted protection of that at the Presidential level.

For 3\1/2\ years, I have watched the President say: I can't do anything about a wide-open border. I can't take any action. There is nothing I can do. It must come from the legislature.

Yet, somehow, now that all the polls have turned around and it looks ominous in 5 months, somehow, he found the wherewithal to say: Well, shazam, I can take executive action.

Who knew? Well, the American people knew because, before he got there, executive action was taken, and the border was relatively secure, much more secure than it is now.

For 3\1/2\ years, it has been wide open, and, essentially, our President just acknowledged what we all knew, that this has been meaningful. This has been by design, the wide-open border has been intentional, and he could have done something about it, but he chose not to until he had no other choice politically.

Even at that, I am sure that my good friend from Texas, who is on the front lines in Texas, is going to talk about the provisions of this. The one I find interesting, we are going to stop these people coming in once we hit the threshold unless they are minors, unaccompanied children. Unless they are minors, unaccompanied children, we are going to let--so we are going to allow the sex trafficking of children to continue, even as we know that our Federal Government has lost track of literally tens of thousands of children illegally in our country, unaccompanied.

Yes, 85,000. Right. Yeah.

When is the invasion clause operable then?

When is it? Never?

If you came across with a gun and you were wearing a uniform with your name on it, that is an invasion. If you don't have a gun and you don't have a uniform, no matter what your intentions are or the scale, that is not an invasion.

Legally.

A day.

I agree completely. The historical perspective of what we accomplished in the House over a year ago now with the most righteous border security bill ever to pass out of the House is to give Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate the alternative, so when the President says: Well, you haven't done anything over there. You haven't passed anything, and you won't pass the bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, it doesn't matter. I mean, it is awesome when it can be bipartisan, but what is more awesome is when it can be correct, when it actually is the solution to the problem.

The Senate bill, the so-called border protection bill that allows 5,000 people every single day to hemorrhage across our border illegally, is not a solution. It is not a solution to an open border. It is just a codification of an open border.

The fact that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't want to vote in favor of securing the border shouldn't be a reason for the President to say: You haven't done anything.

We get that he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it because it actually would have secured the border. That goes to the point. It was always his intention. It has always been his intention. It has always been the intention of my friends on the other side of the aisle to leave the border wide-open as long as they possibly could and get away with it. The only reason it is changing now is because the polls reflect that the American people are, number one, sick of it; and, number two, know they are being lied to and know that the President has the authority and the ability to secure the border.

I do, and I lament this. I say this often. The gentleman from Texas has heard me say that this is the Constitution of the United States of America, Madam Speaker.

It is a quick read. You can probably read that in less than an hour. Everybody can see it is a piece of paper. It cannot defend itself.

There it is, laying on the desk. This is the owner's manual. This is the operator's manual. This is the set of instructions for running your country. We all take an oath to follow this thing. However, if you are not going to, if you choose not to, this Constitution can do nothing about it. It can do nothing.

It takes people of integrity. People that are willing to sacrifice their own personal viewpoints on occasion or what I call the avarice of man, their own personal greed; the things that they want for the sake of this. When people refuse to do this, refuse to do that, and just use the awesome authority granted to them in a position whether it is electoral or otherwise in places like the Department of Justice, well, that is what we have today.

That is what we have today, which is a Soviet-style show trial to go after your political rivals. This is the thing of dictators and tyrants.

One of the practitioners I saw this week before I came in said: It is crazy. It is crazy. I said: It is not crazy; it is tyranny. It is tyranny.

No words that we can use today can adequately honor the sacrifices of those who gave the last full measure and signed up to do it. There is just no way you can describe what they endured and what they knew they were going to endure.

Many of them never made it off the beach. Many of them never made it out of the boat. So many of them even joined up and lied about their age so they could go fight for what they believed in: this country, this idea.

The idea is that everybody is equal under the law, that no one person is more important than another person, that you can make decisions for your life based on what you want to do. You can buy the gas stove that you want or not buy any stove at all. You can buy a car with a windshield sensor in it or no windshield sensor in it.

Madam Speaker, they didn't give their lives for this government that we have now that bankrupts families, that puts the fear of the government in them if they say something, that they are going to be hauled off to jail in the middle of the night or be drawn out on the lawn in their shorts in the wee hours of the morning. Yet, that is what we have right now.

Madam Speaker, we need to honor the commitment they made for the country that they loved that existed then. That is the best thing we could do.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to recognize Master Sergeant (MSgt) Matthew Perri's 23 years of distinguished service, and congratulate him on his well-earned retirement from the United States Air Force.

MSgt Perri began his military career in August 2001, when he enlisted as a Security Forces Apprentice in the U.S. Air Force. After completing basic and technical training at Lackland Air Force Base, he was assigned to the 568th Security Forces Squadron at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. MSgt Perri quickly earned selection as a Security Forces Controller, and was deployed in support of Operations Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. In 2004, he was transferred to the 11th Security Forces Squadron in Washington D.C., where he was selected to attend a Military Dog Handlers course and, upon graduation, served in various Presidential support missions where he provided explosive detection support.

After a brief break in service, MSgt Perri returned to military service in the 193rd Special Operations Civil Engineering Squadron as a Fire Protection Specialist, and quickly earned appointment to Station Captain. MSgt Perri further expanded his scope of service as a Career Enlisted Aviator, Loadmaster. Shortly after graduating this course, he was selected as the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), wherein he oversaw daily flight operations, and ensured mission readiness and that Loadmaster training requirements were met. Through his exceptional performance as NCOIC, he was selected to attend Loadmaster Flight Instructor School, and deployed multiple times in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

Throughout his illustrious career, MSgt Perri earned myriad medals and awards, including the Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC), the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement Medal with two OLC, the (PA) MG Thomas R White Jr. Medal, the (PA) GEN Thomas J. Stewart Medal, First Term Airman of the Year/Ramstein Air Base Award, 2003 Airman of the Year/568th Security Forces Squadron, Ramstein Air Base, 2004 Airman of the Quarter/11th Security Forces Squadron, Washington, D.C., 2005 Amn of the Quarter/11th Security Forces Squadron. Washington, D.C., 2005 Airman of the Year/11th Security Forces Squadron, Washington D.C., 2011 Noncommissioned Officer of the Year/193rd Civil Engineering Squadron, 2019 Noncommissioned Officer of the Year/PA, and the 2021 Senior Noncommissioned Officer of the Year. He also acquired more than 1,000 flight hours, including more than 295 combat hours, flying the C 130J, HC1303, MC130J, and EC130J aircrafts.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored, privileged, and humbled to congratulate Master Sergeant Matthew Perri on his retirement from the United States Air Force. His tireless, faithful, and selfless service of 23 years to the United States of America sets the standard by which we all should be judged.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding. In a rarity of Congress, the title of this bill actually reflects both the content and the gravity of the subject at hand.

Many of my constituents, my bosses, were rightfully concerned when the President's administration announced its intention to surveil their pocketbooks over transactions as low as $600.

A central bank digital currency would be infinitely worse. It would give the government unprecedented visibility and control into Americans' transactions.

What does that mean in practice?

It means that it is much easier to track purchases of things that the government doesn't like, like firearms or other items disapproved by the government. It is much easier for the government to shut down dissenting voices, and it is much easier for the government to control Americans.

Now people on the other side say: Well, that would never happen. It would never happen that the government would tell you what kind of car you have to buy because they are not

going to make any others. The government would never tell you what kind of stove you cannot buy. That would never happen either.

We should learn the lessons from the oppressed citizens everywhere from Canada to the communist Chinese before it is too late. I urge adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer a simple but important amendment.

While the underlying legislation allows the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to regulate digital asset spot markets, nothing in the bill should be construed as giving the CFTC power beyond digital assets.

We all have seen good intentions around here, and nothing is punished like good intentions, so let's make clear what the strike zone is for everybody. We are trying to define that strike zone.

This amendment adds a sense of Congress that nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act should be interpreted to authorize any entity to regulate any commodity other than a digital commodity on any spot market. That is it. That is the whole thing.

Again, this amendment simply aims to combat mission creep, if you want to call it that, somewhere outside the strike zone and makes clear that Congress' intent is to only address digital asset spot markets in this bill and no more. With this amendment, the courts won't have any questions, and Mr. Gensler can't say, ``Well, I am not sure they did this,'' or ``They surely must have meant that.''

No. We cannot allow these agencies to take more and more power in the absence of express congressional approval. We have already seen Mr. Gensler aggressively pursue litigation against the crypto industry, people trying to do it the right way.

While trying to rein him in, we ought to ensure the CFTC knows exactly what they can and cannot do because he is not going to be there forever. There is going to be some next person that comes along and says that Congress wasn't really sure.

We are sure, and that is what this amendment does.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and the former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus for their comments.

I am happy to join in a colloquy with them over the abuses of power and the dangers of the abuse of power.

The Framers of the Constitution noted that it was the avarice of man, the avarice of mankind, the greed of mankind that compelled them to set this government up the way they did, so that there were three separate but coequal branches that would compete with one another and hold each other in check, Mr. Speaker.

It all depended on a few things. It depended on a public, it depended on men and women that would take care, who would put things above themselves that are bigger than themselves. It depended on a people that believed in the sanctity and the providence of God.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little ripped up here because I carry it with me everywhere, but this is the Constitution of the United States of America. I think you can clearly see it is a piece of paper for all intents and purposes. It cannot defend itself. It rides around in my pocket. It depends on people of integrity to defend it, to uphold it and this judicial system we have.

This system of justice we have is no different.

If people are willing to abuse it, it can no more defend itself than this piece of paper known as the Constitution can defend itself. It depends on us. When it is so willingly abused for avarice, for the greed of mankind, there is little that can be done about it.

This body can do little. Unfortunately, the little we can do there has been no interest shown in doing it,

which is the power of funding it. Unfortunately, while we see the abuses, while we watch the abuses front and center, the power that we have to say we will stop it, we have, unfortunately, given them more authority, given them more money than they have even asked for to continue to abuse it.

My friends, my colleagues visited a courthouse today with the former President of the United States for a case in which there is no crime enumerated because there is no crime--specious witnesses to say the least, unfortunately. It is a sad tale no matter which way you look at it.

The reason I am bringing it up and the former speaker brought it up is because you know who can't bring it up? The defendant, the former President of the United States as a defendant can't bring it up because there has been a gag order placed on him.

Mr. Speaker, gag orders are meant--and I am not an attorney, but I think my good friend from Arizona would admit--to protect the accused. Yet, the accused is the one who can't speak in his own defense on his own behalf. Meanwhile, the people that are accusing him, the awesome, unbelievable power of the State--when I say the State, the government, the Federal Government, unlimited resources provided by taxpayers, that is what the accused is up against.

We know because we have seen from history that the accused is the one who is little able to defend themselves, guilty or not guilty, so we want to provide every single protection to the accused, just in case-- just in case, Mr. Speaker, they might not be guilty as charged.

Yet, in this instance, the avarice of man, the guilt and the greed of mankind has compelled this side of the aisle to go after with such a vengeance and use the instruments and the authority of the Federal Government to go after their political rivals.

They are blinded by their greed.

They are blinded by their hatred.

They are blinded by their need to control power so much so that they will do anything, and they have done anything.

We are watching the case in Florida where now we found out the evidence was tampered with. Oh, my goodness, it sure appears like, forget the evidence being tampered with, because it is being tampered with by the same people who appear to have set up the whole charade in the first place, again, against their political rival, the former President of the United States, who might very well be the next President of the United States.

I say all that to say this: History has shown us--and if you have traveled at all and watched conflicts around the world--that these injuries that occur from one side to the other tend to repeat themselves because then if there is going to be a redress--in other words, if there is going to be a fix or a solution to that egregious misuse of power, then the other side is compelled to it when they are in a position of authority. It takes unbelievable will and integrity to say we are not going to engage in that kind of thing. If we are in a position of authority, we are not going to succumb to the greed and the avarice of mankind if you put us in authority.

Mr. Speaker, we all fall short of the grace of God, and the temptation can be overwhelming, which is why it is so important that both sides lay down their greed and say: We are going to try and do this fair and square. We are going to try to do this the right way. We are going to try to win the argument and not use the instruments of Federal power where we otherwise could. We are not going to do that.

Unfortunately, we are in the unchartered territory of the United States of America where that is not the case. This is the charted territory of many despots, dictators, and tyrants around the globe throughout history, and now it has come home to America. Unfortunately, in one of the major political parties in the United States of America. We are watching it weaponized not only against President Trump but average citizens, average citizens who fear that if they might speak, that they might be held in contempt, and they might be bankrupted by somebody that disagrees with them politically.

I will turn it back to my good friend from Virginia and thank him for the time and for bringing the subject up.

Mr. Chair, the time of the vote changed without adequate notice and I could not arrive in time. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 143, AYE on Roll Call No. 144, YEA on Roll Call No. 145, NAY on Roll Call No. 146, AYE on Roll Call No. 147, AYE on Roll Call No. 148, and AYE on Roll Call No. 149.

Mr. Speaker, duplicity. This is a lie. It is a deceit. It is trickery. It is chicanery. It is a fraud. It is a swindle. It is a scam.

By design, Mr. Speaker, this is a pig in a poke. You don't even get the pig, though. You just get the bag.

We told everybody that we are going to do border security and attach it to this bill, that this is all going to go to the Senate, and then the President is going to sign it. That is not going to happen.

Border security is not in here. This is a separate bill designed to fail.

You are getting a box sent to you in the mail that says, ``border security.'' If you are Laken Riley's parents, if you are Kate Steinle's parents, you are getting a box that says, ``border security.'' You open it up, and there is nothing in it.

You are supposed to believe that we are doing something here, Mr. Speaker, but in reality, we are just tricking you and swindling the American people again. This is an abomination.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the bill, but I want everybody to know it is a sham.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.

I am here to remind myself and everybody that we each took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment.

I will read a portion of that for all of you: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. . . . `'

It doesn't say: Well, if we have got an important matter, we can violate it; if it is too difficult, if it takes too long, Mr. Speaker, we can violate it. It doesn't say that. It says it ``shall not be violated.''

Now, we are here to debate the rule today on this, and I will tell you I have concerns about the rule because we worked to make sure that amendments would be in order so that we could vote for them on the floor.

I have concerns about the rule. Assuming this rule passes and this bill comes to the floor, Mr. Speaker, the FBI and the intelligence agencies--just the last time there was a report out--spied on Americans illegally 278,000 times. It sure is long past time that we do something about it. It is sure long past time.

I will tell you, the fact that they are quibbling and fighting about having a warrant requirement, that they are fighting over protecting the data that they are purchasing, not just on me, Mr. Speaker, not just on you, the people in the gallery, the people that are watching on TV. Every single American, these intelligence agencies, without a warrant, are collecting your information for which they each took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which says they can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, this reauthorization is not reformed. It is not currently reformed. It might be reformed depending upon the amendments available, but we already know that the one that protects your data from being bought by the FBI is not going to be allowed.

Somebody has to stand up for the Constitution and the rights of the American people, and if I can't do anything else here in this House of Representatives, you can count on me for standing up for that.

Madam Speaker, last night, when I was looking over the bill, I got a text with a film in it, a video clip of soldiers in uniform being overrun at El Paso, being overrun by illegal foreign nationals coming into our country, just running right over them.

I don't know what their orders were. I don't know what their rules of engagement were. I don't know how anybody expected them to stop these people coming into our country wholesale.

What was amazing and astounding as well, Madam Speaker, is those folks all ran to the Border Patrol to come into our country illegally. Border Patrol was ordered by President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas to allow these people to come into our country.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are going to say we got more beds and we got more Border Patrol agents. Those agents are going to process these individuals into our country, and those beds are going to go unfilled because these people are coming to your town.

Madam Speaker, this bill makes Americans pay for their own sellout, and I recommend that we all vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6276.

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

Madam Chair, H.R. 6276, the USE IT Act of 2023, implements commonsense and reasonable space occupancy standards to get Federal employees back into the office or the agency will have to lose that unnecessary, unneeded, unused space.

A recent Government Accountability Office review of how agencies were actually using their headquarters space here in Washington, D.C., found that 17 of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed used 25 percent or less of their space--17 of the 24, 25 percent or less of their space.

One agency even admitted that if 100 percent of their employees showed up, they would still only use 67 percent of their own building.

Even more troubling is some agencies were using only 9 percent. They can't even make double digits of their space. To be clear, we are not just paying for space to sit empty. Throughout the whole time, we are paying for utilities and services such as heating, cooling, lighting, regular power, maintenance, security for the entire space that no one is in.

Empty Federal buildings are not only a drain to the Federal taxpayer, they also don't produce investments needed for local economies because nobody is in the building. There is nobody there to go out to lunch.

The bottom line is agencies should bring Federal workers back to the office. The reality is underutilized space has been a chronic problem in Federal real estate and is one reason Federal property has been on the GAO's high-risk list since 2003. This problem was identified 20 years ago, and it is still in existence today.

In order to address the issue, H.R. 6276 would use similar metrics to those used by the GAO and require Federal agencies to report on their actual utilization rates, set a target utilization of not less than 60 percent, and require the General Services Administration to report to Congress if any agency fails to meet that standard.

Agencies will be given time to meet the 60 percent utilization standard, but if they fail to do so, they would have to lose or give up their excess space.

Ultimately, the results of H.R. 6276 will benefit not just the Federal taxpayer, but also allow unused Federal buildings to be put to better use for the local communities.

Madam Chair, I urge support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, the current administration doesn't even count every single employee in the Federal system. This bill, as he knows, does not affect flex schedules or telework schedules. It has nothing to do with that. We can, in this case, have our cake and eat it, too.

We can have this bill. We can get our occupancy rate up to 60 percent. We can pass the bipartisan amendment that myself and Representative Auchincloss had worked together on and is in order. We can try and right-size the people that actually show up to work while acknowledging in the Federal system that not everybody has to be in the office.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.

Madam Chair, historically, for 20 years anyhow, while this problem has been identified, these issues have historically been bipartisan. In fact, it was former President Obama who advocated agencies to freeze and then reduce their space footprint, recognizing that agencies had far more space than they needed.

To the gentleman who just spoke, GSA actually wants to do it. They want to reduce the space, but the agencies won't allow it. Why would they? They get so much space, and they don't have to deal with managing it or not. They just get the space, and they can continue on their other work with as much space as they need, sometimes 3,000 square feet per employee.

A lot of people in America would like to have a house that is 3,000 square feet for their whole family. If they were watching today and found out that the Federal Government was paying for that, that their taxes were paying for that when they couldn't afford it themselves, they would be furious.

The Obama administration set a standard that agencies had to account for things like teleworking, actual space usage, and planning for the space. For example, in an agency that may have 1,000 people assigned to a building, only a portion of those people would be counted when it came to desks and space. It puts into consideration things like teleworking. The Obama administration even proposed selling the Department of Labor building based on this type of space utilization and counting.

More recently, I know that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has previously proposed legislation to move and sell the Department of Energy, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Republicans just want to kick Federal employees out of their buildings. We don't. We would actually prefer that they come back to work.

Additionally, if they come back to work, I think it is very reasonable for us to say that we want the building to be 60 percent occupied. Sixty percent is, to me, a pretty good compromise with my friends on the other side of the aisle who are saying we just want to sell buildings and kick Federal employees out of their buildings.

We don't. We want them to come to work, but we want them to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and to use the space efficiently. When they don't need it, like everybody else would do, give up that space to be utilized either by other agencies in the Federal Government or by the political subdivision. Some town or city where that building is located should have the advantage to use that space so that they can increase their tax rolls, so that they can help their vendors out on the streets, and so that they can help their community.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I do want to respond to my good friend from Washington.

I didn't mean to mischaracterize his assessment or his comments. However, the speaker before the gentleman from Washington did essentially make those claims, and so I was answering that.

While I am here, I want to characterize what the public is seeing if they are reading The Washington Times. Here is an article from Wednesday, December 6, 2023, ``Idea to fill empty Federal buildings with illegal immigrants,'' where DHS headquarters is 69 percent unused and Social Security offices are 93 percent vacant.

No wonder offices like mine deal with so many constituent calls when they can't get answers from the Social Security Administration.

We would like those folks to come back to work, but if they are not going to come back to work, could we stop having everybody, including Social Security recipients, pay for the empty building?

Here is another one from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, September 21, 2023: ``Telework's empty buildings opens the door for Legionnaires' disease.''

Well, isn't that wonderful? Won't that be great when the source of a new outbreak of Legionnaires' disease comes from a vacant Federal building that we are paying for?

Here is another one, ``IG to investigate Federal offices left vacant by telework policies,'' from The Washington Times, and the date of this is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

Finally, ``Ghost towns: Federal office buildings are 80 percent vacant, government audit finds.'' This article is from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, October 26, 2023.

We have an opportunity here that shouldn't be partisan and should be pretty simple. All we are saying is: Federal agencies, can you come back to work at least 60 percent? Is that too much? It is 10 percent above 50 percent, which would be half empty. We find that very objectionable, but at least 60 percent should be something we agree on.

Mr. Chair, I include all the articles that I discussed previously in the Record.

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2023]

Idea To Fill Empty Federal Buildings With Illegal Immigrants Solves Two

Problems for Biden Admin

DHS HQ is 69 percent unused, Social Security offices 93 percent vacant

(By Stephen Dinan)

The Biden administration is desperate to find shelter for

all the illegal immigrants caught and released into the U.S.

Perhaps they could stay in federal office buildings.

The Department of Homeland Security's palatial headquarters

in Washington's southeast quadrant sits nearly 70 percent

vacant, according to data released this week by Sen. Joni

Ernst, Iowa Republican.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose

mission is to put Americans into homes, is even worse. Its

headquarters is 93 percent vacant. So is the Social Security

Administration's main building outside Baltimore.

The Office of Personnel Management, the government's human

resources agency, is a ghost town with 88 percent of its

space unoccupied. The General Services Administration, the

government's chief landlord agency, can't fill its own

headquarters, with an 89 percent vacancy rate.

Across two dozen departments and agencies, not a single one

was at 50 percent capacity in the first three months of this

year, according to Ms. Ernst's figures.

``While it's not the night before Christmas yet, there's

not a creature stirring, not even a mouse, in the halls

across this city,'' Ms. Ernst said in releasing the occupancy

figures.

She said the Biden administration gave the numbers to her

but didn't want them released publicly. She defied that

demand, saying the public needs to know how bad things have

become in the federal workforce.

``COVID's been over for years. Where are the workers?'' she

said.

The Washington Times reached out to the worst-performing

agencies to ask about the vacancies and their plans to

rectify matters.

None of the agencies provided a comment, though in response

to federal officials, HUD and the Small Business

Administration said their spaces were undergoing renovations

during the test period, which contributed to a decrease in

attendance.

The GSA controls more than 90 million square feet of office

space in the Washington region alone, and the government

holds about 511 million square feet nationally. GSA figures

on 150 to 180 square feet of usable space per employee.

The 24 headquarters buildings for which Ms. Ernst released

data were operating at about 20 percent of full use.

Occupancy is based on a building's capacity and the amount

of use of its space. The data was based on average attendance

during sample days in a three-month period from January

through March and was derived from sign-ins, logins and badge

swipes.

While offices sit empty, many American communities are

overwhelmed by the surge of illegal immigrants whom the Biden

administration has caught and released.

Ms. Ernst suggested a meeting of the minds.

``So-called sanctuary cities have run out of space to

shelter the influx of immigrants that the Biden

administration is allowing to enter the country illegally.

With two-thirds of the Department of Homeland Security

headquarters going unused, maybe the agency causing the

problem can solve it by opening their doors,'' she told The

Times.

Homeland Security, which has a use rate of 31 percent, did

not respond to a request for comment on the idea.

Exact numbers are a closely held secret, but outside

estimates say Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

has paroled 2 million illegal immigrants into the U.S., in

addition to others caught and released or who sneaked in

altogether.

The administration has moved to stick thousands of them at

a National Park Service property in New York. It signed a

lease with the city for the Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn.

That location lacks many amenities, and the tent city

erected to house the migrants sits in a flood plain, critics

charged.

House Republicans, joined by a smattering of Democrats,

voted last week to cancel the lease and to prevent migrants

from being placed on other property held by federal land

management agencies. That legislation, which is unlikely to

make it through the Democratic-controlled Senate, does not

appear to block migrants from being placed in buildings run

by non-land-management agencies.

Meanwhile, vacancy at federal buildings is an increasingly

touchy issue for the Biden administration, which has declared

the pandemic emergency over and ordered employees back to

work in person but has been met with resistance by those

workers.

The comptroller general, in a report earlier this year,

prodded agencies about the matter.

They offered a host of excuses for why they weren't filling

space, including preparing for a possible surge of returning

employees.

Some excuses seemed more territorial.

The audit said some agencies seemed to worry that giving up

their buildings or sharing space with others would make them

seem less powerful than other agencies.

Even within departments and agencies, divisions were

reluctant to share space such as conference rooms, the

Government Accountability Office said.

Mr. Chair, Federal real property has remained on the GAO's high-risk list for more than 20 years. The Government Accountability Office has said this is a high risk for the last 20 years, and we are on the precipice. We are standing on the edge of providing a solution to the excess space that exists that we keep paying for.

At the same time, our debt has gone to $34 trillion. By May, it will be $35 trillion. We are not going to save trillions here, but we can save billions here. If you start adding up billions, maybe you will finally get to trillions. However, we are not saving anything right now, and we are not going to save any of this if we don't pass this bill.

This is our opportunity, Mr. Chair, to finally fix this problem, a problem that I will note has historically found bipartisan support to address the issue. Even on this occasion, when the bill was lacking, we had a hearing. We had a markup on it.

Friends on the other side of the aisle said: Would you listen to a way where potentially we could improve it?

Of course, we did, and we worked together. You are going to have an opportunity to vote on that amendment shortly.

The USE IT Act of 2023 is reasonable. It is commonsense legislation that simply says that if the Federal employees don't come back into the office, the taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the empty space.

We don't have any extra money in this town, Mr. Chair. Nobody has any extra money. Right here, we have identified it. This is where some of it is going unnecessarily. We can consolidate. We can sell things off.

Some of these agencies will probably get a new building, just at the right size, where their workers would still have flex time, would still telework where appropriate, and where constituents--our bosses, the American people--could access the services that they pay for and deserve to get because they do pay for them.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this soon-to-be bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment to H.R. 6276 with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss). This amendment makes two clarifying changes to the bill, ensuring that the legislation collects occupancy data in a way that better encompasses all Federal workers, wherever they are working, and protects the privacy of those workers.

This amendment updates the definition of ``occupancy'' in the bill from the total number of employees performing duties in person over a 5-day workweek to the number of employees doing so over a 40-hour workweek, ensuring that occupancy calculations can more comprehensively account for all employees.

Now, the issue came up during discussion in regular order in the committee. Mr. Auchincloss had some issues with the bill, and rightly so. He came to me, and he said: Can we work on this? I said: Sure, I think we can because we are all interested in making things better, no matter where the ideas come from.

Additionally, this amendment requires that the sensors used to collect occupancy data within this bill are designed to protect the personally identifiable information of the building's occupants, ensuring that these new requirements will not impinge and impose on Federal employee privacy.

It has been great to work with the gentleman. We all want to improve things. We all think we have the best ideas, but sometimes we don't, and when somebody else does, you have just got to say, well, look, can we get it done together? If that brings us together, that is a win for the American people and, quite honestly, a win for this Congress if we can work on the amendment, get it passed and also the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, again, trying to alleviate the fact that a vast majority of the buildings are vastly understaffed, yet 100 percent of them are paid for, that is what we are trying to do here. It has been a 20-year-long problem--20 years long. The Obama administration recognized it and tried to do something about it. Of course, GSA wants to do something about it. Again, the tenants, the occupants of the buildings, the agencies have no incentive to reduce their space. They would be happy to have all the space and have nobody in it except when they feel like showing up as long as the taxpayer is willing to pay for an empty building, well heated, well cared for, well maintained, just in case they might use it.

Now, we have told the Rules Committee that we want to see all the amendments that are worthy to be listened to be debated and come to the floor for a vote because we think that improving ideas, no matter where they come from, is the greatest thing for this institution and for this effort.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment that I worked on with my good friend, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 6276, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

I am, my good friend from Texas. There were 20,000 Chinese, and I think to myself, how did they get out? How did they escape the Communist Party of China?

To my good friend, Representative Roy, I don't think they escaped. I think the Communist Party of China sent them. The Communist Party of China uses facial recognition software and programs oftentimes created in the United States of America to track every single movement, every decision that the people of China make, so they know why they are here. We aren't sure why they are here, but I suspect it is not because they love America. It is not because of that, and we are going to fund that.

Do you know what else we are going to fund? You mentioned this, but I think it is important to put a boy's name or a little girl's name to this because that is what it is to many Americans. Travis Wolfe, a day away from his 12-year-old birthday, Travis Wolfe, one day away from being 12, unfortunately Edina Bracho, here illegally, an illegal foreign national to our country, driving 70 miles an hour in Missouri going the wrong way on the highway, crashed into his and his parents' car.

On March 6, they took Travis off of life support. He didn't celebrate his 12th birthday. He didn't celebrate it because now he has passed on.

I imagine Travis Wolfe's parents are thinking: I live in America. I had fourth-grade civics. The Constitution says they are going to defend my family and defend me against a foreign invasion. I have lost my son. What am I paying taxes for? What am I voting for in this country if you can't keep my son alive at the hands of someone who doesn't belong here?

Just a month ago, Travis was doing well, smiling and laughing, and now he is gone, and the parents are left with what? What are the parents left with? The consolation that we can pass a bill, a resolution in the House of Representatives that says: Illegal foreign nationals in the country, that is bad.

That doesn't make up for Travis, I guarantee. I don't know Travis. I don't know his parents, but I am heartbroken for them. If no one else will stand up for Travis and his parents, I know Chip Roy from Texas will, and I certainly will as well.

How about Lizbeth Medina? She was murdered in December. Her murderer, Rafael Romero, was here illegally. He was a criminal on probation. He was here illegally. He had already committed crimes, but they let him out, so he stalked Lizbeth, and he went into her apartment where she lived.

Lizbeth is 16. She lived with her mother. That is where kids should be, with their parents, but Rafael went in and bashed her head in. He stabbed her to death.

She was a cheerleader at her high school with her whole life in front of her in America, the place that is supposed to protect its citizens. Meanwhile, Lizbeth's mom now lives in an empty house, I am sure heartbroken because her daughter is gone.

Why is her daughter gone? Because President Biden says that Rafael Romero and Edina Bracho deserve to be in America because they came here. We don't know what their circumstances are, but they deserve to be in America because everybody deserves to be in America.

Even though we have a system of legal immigration, the same system that my great-grandmother and my grandmother used to come from Colombia, South America, that system is not good enough even though we are the most generous country on the planet and allow a million people to come to America every single year legally. They wait in line. They take the test. They oftentimes know more about American civics than Americans do. However, according to President Biden, how many million people, Mr. Roy?

There are 7.3 million people who can come from all these other countries, who don't have to abide by the law and can kill American citizens.

Do you know what the insult to injury is to Lizbeth Medina's mother? Next week, we are going to make sure that the Federal Government is fully funded so they can just keep on doing it, keep on sending the killers to kill American citizens.

It is unacceptable, unconscionable, and somebody has to stand up for these folks. If the majority of the Members in this Chamber won't do it, then maybe the majority of the Members in this Chamber need to get a different job. I don't know what else to say.

We are here to represent the United States of America and our citizens. Our citizens are dying at the hands of people who are here illegally who have been arrested not only for the crime of coming to the country illegally, disrespecting the people that pay the bills around here, disrespecting the people that follow the law around here, but then committing crimes in addition to that.

Myself, Mr. Roy, and you, Madam Speaker, are expected to vote to fund all that because it is too hard not to. It is just too hard, Mr. Roy from Texas.

That is what I understand. How many months ago did we vote against this?

It was 15 months ago that every single Republican in this Chamber voted ``no'' on what was and what is just unbelievable spending, unaffordable.

We are spending a trillion dollars every hundred days now. Every single Republican voted against it. The policy was awful and led to the death of these two individuals.

The spending was unaffordable, and now, these months later, we have avoided an omnibus in December so that we can do two minibuses in March, and I feel so much better about that, don't you, Mr. Roy?

An additional trillion.

We had an amendment on the floor to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that funds Hamas directly. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, and then, within days of that, Hamas attacked Israel.

That is correct.

Well, what about the funding to the United Nations that is then funneled to south of the border, which is used to pay the cartels to move people from 150-plus countries through my good friend Chip Roy's district in Texas to the rest of the United States?

Funding the people who are taking the life of Travis Wolfe and Lizbeth Medina, funding those people.

I suspect that we will get almost twice as many votes from that side of the aisle for a bill brought by the Republican majority, and the reason why that is is because most of

their priorities, the vast majority of their priorities are funded.

Correct.

Correct.

Mr. ROY: He rose through the ranks to the title of General, correct?

Correct.

The gentleman knows that I will be registering a strong ``no'' in objection to those things that are destroying the greatest military the planet has ever known.

They will, indeed.

On both sides of the aisle.

Of course, we are all concerned. It is unconscionable. Those who disagree with us say that our position on the border is inhumane, but I would submit that losing track of 85,000 children who-- just let your mind wander--are God knows dealing with what right now, turned over by cartels to other cartel members in the United States for just horrific circumstances, and yet we are supposed to just turn our face from that and act like, well, that is the cost of doing business?

Of course not.

There is no American--left, right, or center--listening to this list who says: Sign me up to support that.

Just astounding. It is astounding that that is our circumstance, yet that is where we find ourselves, and that is where Americans find themselves. I mean, some of the folks who know me say: Oh, you are so dramatic. You are so dramatic about it, and it is really not that bad. Immigration has always been an issue; it hasn't changed that much. You are just trying to increase people's anxiety. You are over the top.

I don't know, but I guarantee you, Travis Wolfe's parents, Lizbeth Medina's mother, Laken Riley's parents, there is nothing more dramatic than losing your child. The hopelessness that they must feel at the inability to do anything about it, knowing that this is happening in the country, knowing that we know. They know we know.

We read the news, we see the names, we hear the stories, but we are going to fund it. What are we going to say to them when we fund it? It is the best we could do? That is the best we could do?

I know that Mr. Roy feels the same way. No one else is here. The Speaker is here, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) is here, I am here. I am sure there is a lot going on in Washington, D.C., tonight. I am sure there is. We are going to use this time to honor and to acknowledge Travis Wolfe, Lizbeth Medina, Laken Riley, and the 100,000 Pennsylvanians who died of drug overdoses last year. That is happening for a reason.

It is happening because these drugs are coming across our border. The cartels are running them. China is providing them, and America under this President is doing nothing to stop it.

It is going to be quite a number. Unfortunately, it is going to be quite a number of Republicans.

This week, they will say they condemn the Biden administration for dereliction of duty, the lost lives created by wide-open borders. Then next week they will say: Well, we didn't have any choice. We had to fund it. We didn't have any choice. There was nothing more we could do.

That is the sad state of affairs, and that is how our country ends up $34 trillion in debt, racking up $100 trillion every 100 days of additional debt with murderers who have been caught by the law out running around here illegally killing American citizens. That is how you end up with that. Unfortunately, that is what we are headed for.

We are supposed to take a victory lap because it didn't happen in December. It wasn't the pre-Christmas omnibus, so that is a win. That is something to celebrate. That is what I am told.

I guarantee you, Lisbeth's mom and Travis' parents are not celebrating that. They want something done. They demand something be done.

We can't bring back their loved ones, but we can damn sure make sure that it doesn't happen to anyone else. The way to do that is to stop funding this wide-open border.

People say: Well, you passed H.R. 2. It is dead on arrival in the Senate. They are never going to take it up. You have to accept something less.

How about we accept something less that is this? How about this President institute the same policies he eviscerated on day one of his Presidency and at least start bringing us back to some semblance of a nation that has a border, that is sovereign, and that is determining its own destiny?

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6277) to amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to improve such Act, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6277.

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

First, I would thank the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee Ranking Member Titus from Nevada for working with me on this piece of legislation. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act, also known as FASTA, was passed in 2016 to create a temporary board of experts to identify Federal properties for sale and redevelopment.

Unfortunately, the process has not worked as Congress originally envisioned, and this bill seeks to remedy that.

Federal agencies are reluctant to let go of property they don't need, and it has become clear the board requires more authority to gather data it needs to develop recommendations.

This bill would make a number of reforms to improve the effectiveness of the process, including extending the board's timeline, speeding up the effective date of incentives for agencies to put properties forward, and giving the board access to the Federal Real Property Council.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), for her hard work on this effort. H.R. 6277 makes improvements to the authorities of the Public Buildings Reform Board, or the PBRB, established by the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016, or the FASTA, to increase the number of Federal properties the board recommends be sold or redeveloped.

By allowing for more Federal properties to be sold or redeveloped, H.R. 6277 will ultimately reduce the cost of our Federal real estate portfolio, resulting in savings for the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.