Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Madam Speaker, let me announce breaking news. I don't want to see the government shut down. Democrats don't want to see the government shut down. The American people…
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Madam Speaker, let me announce breaking news.
I don't want to see the government shut down.
Democrats don't want to see the government shut down.
The American people don't want to see the government shut down.
I am standing with the American people and cities and hamlets and villages and counties and States.
What has failed to be enunciated, I say to my friend on the other side, is that we had a deal. We should have been finished with this.
The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States already agreed in the spring on what the numbers would be, what we were going to do for the government to keep operating. It has already been done.
We are here now because of the upheaval of MAGA Republicans talking about undermining a deal that was made on behalf of the good people of this Nation. We are facing an uphill battle.
We just came out of the Budget Committee where they are fighting to eliminate $400 million in Medicare cuts and $2 trillion in cuts to mandatory health spending.
The reason why we are on the floor now is because we believe in the people back home. They can't afford another unfunded mandate. Cities are now carrying over their fund balances with Federal dollars that Democrats were able to give to keep them alive. If we have these unfunded mandates, childcare goes out the window; Active-Duty military have problems with getting paid, our veterans don't get their
services; Social Security payments may be up in the air; the burden of having to pay money for unfunded mandates; the hanger-on amendments that are being put into these bills are just tragic.
Law enforcement may be impacted negatively. Those who are in need of getting violent criminals off the street may be put in jeopardy. People who are working-class Americans going to community colleges are in jeopardy of getting their resources.
Madam Speaker, let me just say this: No more unfunded mandates. Let's do the deal that we have and save the American people.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on these four appropriation bills before us today: H.R. 4365-- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4367--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024; and H.R. 4368--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.
I oppose the Rule and the underlying legislation as it pertains to H.R. 4365, for the following reasons:
The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan and damaging policies under our noses.
The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who sit on the very committee this bill originated from.
In order to further promote a culture war, the members who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.
First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive healthcare regardless of their station.
Women currently make up 1 in 5 members of our military.
Denying them their previously promised ability to check their reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly irresponsible. The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would strip away.
Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly victimized by Republican agendas around the country.
Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with respect and equality, which this bill does not do.
This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender dysphoria. Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a serious issue and has led to 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary young people attempting suicide in the past year.
Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect the wellbeing of ALL citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and ideologies.
The language in this legislation would further embolden those who wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.
This is unacceptable.
The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not promote the diversity of our nation but rather seeks to suppress it.
This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way Republicans sought to eliminate ``Critical Race Theory?'' or ``CRT''.
Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in education.
Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society; it is not an attack on white people for their history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.
Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash over the negative to present a false narrative.
At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against a Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected accurately in the history of this multicultural nation.
Another issue with this Defense Appropriations bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt military equipment to be more climate friendly.
Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and efforts.
The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.
It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States Army.
This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a net zero future.
In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than most countries.
But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to scale back on their emissions, certain members in Congress want to limit their choice.
One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4365 that was made in order by the committee.
The Jackson Lee amendment H.R. 4365 seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research.
This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military, who are up to 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.
I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.
This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.
Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I am very proud of the work that I and Congress has done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, but there are still improvements to be made.
The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.
While this amendment is important, the negatives of this defense appropriations bill vastly outweigh the positives.
As with all the additional appropriation bills on the floor today, the Administration likewise strongly opposes the passage of this bill for a myriad of reasons--including the following:
Border Management Funding: It is disappointing this bill does not include funding for a new Southwest Border Contingency Fund. This fund would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the Southwest border and fulfill its critical and complementary missions of securing the border, performing efficient and effective screening and processing, and meeting the Nation's humanitarian obligations.
Shelter and Services Program: It also shameful that this bill seeks to eliminate the Shelter and Services Program, a priority grant program for DHS that provides temporary food, shelter, and other services to state and local entities and non-governmental organizations that provide support to migrants who are released from DHS custody. This grant program is a key mechanism for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to relieve overcrowding in short-term holding facilities.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Funding: This bill further fails to provide appropriations for USCIS application processing and grant programs. Without this funding, USCIS would be unable to improve its operations and the application processing backlog would continue to grow in FY 2024.
Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVFP) Grants: It is absolutely abhorrent that this bill eliminates the TVTP grant program. TVTP provides funding to nonprofits and to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to develop multidisciplinary targeted violence and terrorism prevention capabilities in local communities, to pilot innovative prevention approaches, and to identify prevention best practices that can be replicated in communities across the Nation.
Immigration Enforcement Prohibitions and Requirements: I also stand with the Administration in strongly opposing section 220 of the bill, which would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using appropriated funds to carry out the Administration's immigration enforcement priorities, as well as the requirement in the bill for ICE to fill 41,500 detention beds and enroll all non-detained migrants in Alternatives to Detention. These requirements are unrealistic, pose implementation challenges, and would dilute the Department's focus on protecting America from security threats.
Restrictions on Alternatives to Detention (ATD): This bill wrongfully eliminates funding for the Young Adult Case Management Program, as well as for Operation Horizon, and grant funds for a case management pilot program. These restrictions would simultaneously strain limited resources and remove valuable flexibilities in managing low-risk populations.
Limiting Interior Transportation: Prohibiting the transport of noncitizens to interior locations risks overcrowding at border processing sites and other DHS facilities, threatening to exacerbate life and safety concerns of those in custody.
Restrictions on Access to Healthcare: Section 222 of the bill is also particularly harmful, which would make it more difficult to access lawful reproductive healthcare. I stand in strong opposition to this section, which targets LGBTQI+ individuals who are in ICE detention.
Prohibiting the Implementation of the Asylum Processing Rule: This bill further prohibits the use of funds to implement the Administration's Asylum Processing Rule--which serves as a key part of the Administration's efforts to streamline the immigration system, allowing USCIS Asylum Officers to hear and decide certain asylum claims in the first instance.
Prohibiting the Implementation of the Legal Pathways Rule: I further oppose the bill's prohibition on using funds to implement the Administration's Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule. The Rule encourages migrants to use lawful, safe, and orderly processes for entering the United States; imposes conditions on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so or fail to seek protection in a country through which they transit; and supports the swift return of migrants who do not have valid protection claims. The bill would undermine DHS's continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.
Restricting the Use of the CBP One Application: I also strongly oppose the bill's restrictions on using the CBP One application. A key part of the Administration's efforts to foster fair and orderly conditions at the border, the CBP One application allows border officials to screen migrants seeking asylum along the Southwest border, and issue them a document to appear in court upon their arrival.
Border Wall: Lastly, I oppose the homeland security appropration bill for its rescession and reappropriation of $2.1 billion in border wall funding. Building a border wall is not a serious policy solution nor is it a responsible use of Federal funds.
While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 in order, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.
The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.
I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.
Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.
For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.
The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetic fistula, complications during childbirth and death.
Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.
According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.
Lastly, as it pertains to the bill to determine appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for the 2024 fiscal year, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
While I am again grateful the Rules committee made in order my Jackson Lee Amendment, listed as No. 18 in the Harris (MD)--En Bloc, this bill seeks to return America's agriculture back to 2006 funding levels--with an allocation of $17.1 billion, nearly $8 billion below last year's enacted bill.
The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funding that provides grant research financial support for ``1890s Land Grant Universities,'' which are 28 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This amendment also proposes decreasing funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities' (APLU) Council of 1890s includes all Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that are land-grant universities.
Under the Morrill Act of 1890, at least 19 universities have been designated with land-grant status. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities--Excellence in Research HBCU-EiR program was established in response to direction provided in the Senate Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Report (Senate Report 115-139). That initiative was built on prior and continuing efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to strengthen research capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
The Jackson Lee Amendment would provide sufficient funding and guidance to enable the NSF to be successful with the HBCU Excellence in Research program.
This amendment would further provide opportunities for both public and private HBCUs, particularly for those who have not been successful in competing with larger NSF Research & Related Activities.
Increasing Funding for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that provides grant research would help to stimulate sustainable improvement in research and development capacities of HBCUs.
By increasing funding for relevant agencies that provide appropriate financial support for these historically underserved institutions, we can ensure that federal funds are redirected toward more critical funding needs of the American people.
However, the proposed underlying bill as is would mean a pull back on investment, slashing the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers.
H.R. 4368 rescinds $500 million from the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP), which helps farmers facing high input costs.
Many provisions in this bill seek to limit access to viable programs and put many out of reach of energy efficient projects that help American farmers to lower their energy bills and live decent lives.
For everyday rural Americans, the implementation of this bill would have a substantially negative impact on their daily livelihood. These communities rely on crucial infrastructure, from water and wastewater systems to high-speed internet.
However, these infrastructure projects require huge upfront costs that smaller tax bases of rural communities cannot bear alone.
H.R. 4368 would cut federal grants to community facilities by a whopping 90 percent, obstructing the progress in bringing affordable health care to underserved and rural communities, and it will cut rural water and waste disposal loans by 30 percent and rural waste disposal grants by 36 percent.
All these senseless cuts to funding amount to 325 crucial projects for rural water and wastewater systems that simply will not have the funding to be implemented.
This bill also seeks to eliminate funding for the Distressed Communities program, which means hundreds of small local governments will not be able to renovate their systems to meet EPA standards for getting arsenic and lead out of their drinking water systems.
The cumulative and direct impact of these policies on the American people will be devastating. Thousands of American families could lose access to reliable sources of water, not knowing if they could turn on the spigot and get clean, safe water to drink or complete a myriad of other essential daily tasks.
H.R. 4368 further limits funding for Rural Electric Cooperatives that help close the gaps in our power grid across the country. Over 900 rural electric cooperatives serve 42 million people across 48 states-- including 92 percent of persistent poverty counties--those who can least afford to build and maintain this crucial infrastructure. These Rural Electric Cooperatives play vital roles in ensuring that rural communities have access to affordable energy.
Additionally, H.R. 438 will contribute to food insecurity in our country. The bill calls for new work requirements for SNAP recipients, which exacerbates the cycle of poverty--particularly in rural communities.
We cannot deny the fact that SNAP recipients who are able to work, do work. However, even with a full-time job, many Americans, especially those in our rural communities, struggle to earn enough to escape poverty.
This is not an issue of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, but of limited job opportunities, cut-back work hours, and other extenuating factors.
America cannot thrive if Americans are hungry, and this bill will take food out of the mouths of over 6 million Americans who will lose SNAP benefits due to the increased work requirements.
If this bill passes, it will rescind $500 million dollars in WIC funding, underfunding the account for 2024 directly affecting nearly 5 million hungry women and children.
H.R. 4368 will reduce levels for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by $1.2 billion--hurting both families and farmers.
As a result, 4.6 million of our people would lose out on produce and our farmers would lose an expected $1.2 million dollars in revenue.
Not only that, the nearly 30 percent cut to single family direct housing loans--from $1.25 billion in FY 2023 to $900 million in FY 2024--will make it harder for rural Americans to afford to buy a house.
This means that over 2800 rural families will not be able to get financing to put a roof over their heads; our farmers, producers, and rural communities deserve a more reliable partner in our Congress.
While it is without question that the USDA has a long and storied history of discrimination, Congress, however, has always been a steadfast partner and cornerstone of this country's agricultural industry. This appropriations bill, H.R. 4368, however, seeks to undermine enduring efforts of this Congress to ensure equal opportunity and access for every American.
These appropriations should be a reliable means by which we help Americans from all walks of life; unfortunately, the Republican proposed bill before us today does not meet the moment.
Too much is at stake--from the food we eat, to the medicine and medical devices on which we rely, and the fiber and materials that help clothe and build our country, and our national security. Americans deserve better.
America cannot permit a child, a family, or a small business that has their potential to be limited, and opportunities curtailed simply because they are located in a Rural Free Delivery (RFD) zip code.
This appropriations bill presented to us today takes food out of the mouths of hungry people, creates barriers for women who need access to medication, raises energy costs for rural Americans, and makes it harder for small farmers and poultry producers to meet their basic needs.
We can do better. We are better than this. The American people deserve better.
I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against this cruel proposal.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation for all four appropriation bills.
Madam Speaker, I just got off the telephone with one of my chief law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas, in Harris County, who just simply begged us not to shut down the government.
As everyone knows, I was on the floor just an hour or so ago saying, breaking news, I am against a government shutdown. We will fight against the government shutdown. My good friend on the other side of the aisle is complaining that the Senate did their work with such an amazing, overwhelming majority.
Let me tell you how we can solve that before I get into discussion of why we are standing here today. Put the Senate bill on the floor. That is the rules that are the operational underpinnings of the House and Senate. They send it over, and we put it on the floor. If you don't like it, you change it and send it back. That way, you are engaged in stopping the shutdown.
However, if we sit here tonight and do nothing, the government shutdown, in particular, is going to impact the gross domestic product from 2 to 6 percentage points or $2- to $6 billion in lost output. That is people without jobs, resulting in the creation of 120,000 fewer private-sector jobs.
In addition, things like Medicare and Medicaid are going to be in jeopardy. Our economic security will be in jeopardy. Education and training will be in jeopardy, infrastructure dollars; and, particularly, my seniors and others in need of Social Security checks are just going to be out in the cold.
Combining, however, the bills that my friends want us to move on, they attack women's reproductive rights, they attack the LGBTQ+ community, who are continuously victimized for medical care that they need. They talk about Homeland Security, and it is completely untenable that they exclude funding for a new southwest border contingency fund that would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the southwest border. They cut out shelter and services programs. It is shameful to eliminate those programs that provide temporary food and shelter.
Madam Speaker, in addition--can you believe it?-- they slash or eliminate the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers under the agriculture bill; and then targeting violence and terrorism prevention grants, they take that out.
What are we talking about here? Let's deal with the CR from the Senate. You don't like it, add something to it, and send it back. Today is September 26. We will be able to say to the American people, we are adults, and we can stop the shutdown.
Let's go to work. These bills have to go back to the table again. I want to make sure we don't have a shutdown, and we can do it with the Senate CR right now.