Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote No. 295 on H.R. 4795 I mistakenly recorded my vote as NAY when I should have voted YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Kenny Cox, who passed away in July following a battle against Parkinson's disease.

Kenny led a life defined by service, courage, and unwavering commitment to the men and women of our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical response teams.

A firefighter right out of high school, Kenny was forced into early retirement because of a midcareer injury, but Kenny couldn't walk away from the cause he loved. For 37 years, he served in elected leadership roles in the International Association of Fire Fighters, including as its president.

Kenny was the longest-serving elected official in the union's history, recipient of the District of Columbia's Silver Medal for Valor, and the IAFF's unofficial press secretary.

He valued service to others and love of community and country, and both of these informed his work as a firefighter and as an organizer.

As I noted at the dedication ceremony naming the IAFF Local 36 building in his honor, his hallmark was a profound care for his local members, their families, and the quality of training needed to keep our communities and firefighters safe.

On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus leadership, I extend my condolences to his son, Ken Jr.; his sister, Karen Hallman; and his entire family.

Kenny's wife sadly passed away after 61 years of marriage last year, and their beloved daughter, Michelle, who sang so beautifully at the annual Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service that so many Members have attended, lost her battle to cancer in 2020.

May Kenny's memory be a blessing and comfort to all who serve on the fire line and the emergency response teams.

Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my time in public service was sponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeing it through to enactment.

I was honored to work closely with House and Senate colleagues, leaders like Bob Dole, Tom Harkin, Tony Coelho, Steve Bartlett, Orrin Hatch, and Ted Kennedy, just to name a few. We passed it on a bipartisan basis, and it was signed into law by President George Bush in 1990.

This month, we celebrate the 36th anniversary of the ADA. In those 36 years, that law has made a transformative difference for millions of Americans. It did so not only for physical access to public and private spaces of public accommodations but also in ensuring reasonable accommodations in workplaces and nondiscrimination in every facet of American life.

We have seen it strengthened through legislation like the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and through the courts with decisions like Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999.

That decision concerned the ADA's nondiscrimination rule and applied it to the forced segregation of disabled people away from their communities, a historic tragedy in centuries past.

The Olmstead ruling affirmed that States are required to provide disability services in the most integrated setting possible: in schools, workplaces, and even individuals' homes.

Last month, the Department of Justice issued new guidance that the ADA does not guarantee--according to them--a right to live and receive services in integrated settings. Instead, it reinterprets the Olmstead's decision as only prohibiting States from unnecessarily institutionalizing those with disabilities without adequate justification and that it did not establish a general integration mandate.

Frankly, that is absurd. Olmstead merely affirmed what Congress had clearly intended in the ADA. Unlike when we speculate on what our Founders' intent was in paraphrasing certain parts of our Constitution, when it comes to laws enacted 36 years ago, we can go right to the source.

Let me be absolutely and unambiguously clear, as the House sponsor of the ADA: An integration mandate, as outlined correctly in the Olmstead ruling, was our intent.

Senators Dole, Kennedy, and Hatch may no longer be here to state it, but I am sure former Senator Harkin and former Representative Coelho, Bartlett, and others, who were involved in drafting and enacting the law, will affirm the same.

Among the findings expressly listed in the text of the ADA was that, ``Society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem,'' according to the Olmstead case.

The Department of Justice is wrong and ought to retract its new guidance to States and communities.

At the same time, we have also seen the Trump administration use disability rights as an excuse to undermine ballot access and trample on the Help America Vote Act, which I also had the honor of sponsoring.

The same principle just outlined about Olmstead applies here as well. It was never Congress' intent in writing the ADA that accommodating people with disabilities should be used as an excuse to limit Americans' right to vote, just as it should not be issuing a rule penalizing Americans with disabilities for living at home with their families and caregivers and slashing Medicaid funding, upon which so many in the disability community rely.

I certainly hope statements like this one--from someone who was intimately involved in the writing of the ADA and stated from the floor--will serve as a reminder of the legislative intent of the ADA and of the Congress: It is truly all about nondiscrimination, public accommodation, equal access, and, yes, integration as much as possible within communities.

We cannot turn the clock back to the time before the ADA, when those with disabilities were ostracized, isolated, and locked away.

I am proud of the part I played in changing that. All of us should be proud that this institution came through and delivered in both promise and practice. Let us continue to do so today.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, sadly, I cannot agree with Chairman Cole. This bill does not send a strong message to our friends, nor does it send an unmistakable message to our adversaries.

Sadly, this bill has zero for Ukraine, our ally fighting the Russian invader. That is a grave mistake and absolutely the wrong approach. It is a dangerous signal at a time when we ought to show unwavering support for Ukraine's defense of its homeland.

Yesterday marked 40 days since the House passed the Ukraine Support Act. That bipartisan legislation would provide Ukraine with an additional $8 billion in loans for military procurement as well as $1.3 billion in direct security assistance.

It also would impose new sanctions that will further erode Vladimir Putin's ability to continue this illegal, immoral, and unjust war. Now, it is the Senate's turn to act.

Over the weekend, America lost a champion in the effort to stand with Ukraine. Senator Graham understood that America's responsibility was to ensure that Ukraine has every resource it needs, but none in this bill. Not just to survive but to win.

Senator Graham died just hours after returning from Ukraine and securing bipartisan agreement on a new punishing sanction bill. I hope that all of us in the House and Senate will honor his memory by continuing to vigorously support Ukraine.

Its drone strategy is creating space on the battlefield for real movement. Something is in the air, and it is the feeling that victory is not only achievable but increasingly within reach. This bill does not send a strong message of that objective. Not the end of the beginning, but finally, hopefully, perhaps the beginning of the end.

Let us be clear: America does not abandon our allies. America does not shrink from the fight. Democracy will not yield 1 inch to tyranny. We should be saying that in this bill. I do not yield my opposition to tyranny.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security.

As Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out, if adopted, it would limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, that expressly target American citizens and military personnel. It would make it harder for America to use our relationships with Israel and regional partners to promote a negotiated two-state solution, the only realistic path to deliver on the promise of peace, security, and self-determination for both Israel and Palestine.

I understand the frustration that many Members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli Government, as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two- state solution. However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those pursuing the complete elimination of Israel and those who seek the death of Jews.

Madam Chair, it is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region and a vote against American security, interest, and safety. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H. Res. 1110.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Meeks, who is ranking member of this committee. I thank all those who had the courage to stand up and sign this bill. I would say to my friend who just spoke, whom I have

great respect for: Nothing in this bill contradicts the concerns that he raised. They are consistent with the concerns he raised, and, in fact, they present a forward movement on the concerns that he raised.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase General Eisenhower, the eyes of the world are upon us. Since Putin launched his perfidious invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the House has taken 12 votes to support the Ukrainians in defense of their freedom, of their sovereignty, and of international law.

Over all 12, an average of 80 percent of this House--80 percent of this House--has voted to hold firm to the principle that Ukraine must win this war and Putin and his war crimes must lose it, 12 bills, an average of 80 percent of the House of Representatives voting for it, and, in addition, that America has a pivotal role in supporting Ukraine.

The last time, however, that we voted on a Ukraine assistance package was April 2024. My friend said he was for Ukraine, but not today. I have heard so many times: I am for Ukraine, but not this bill; yes, I will be with you on Ukraine, but not now.

In 2025, American aid to Ukraine fell by 99 percent. Thankfully, international aid to Ukraine stayed close to 2024 levels because European allies stepped up and delivered a 67 percent surge--not a 2 percent, not a 4 percent, not a 5--67 percent surge in military assistance and a 59 percent rise in humanitarian aid.

Europe is carrying its weight in helping Ukraine.

In the 2 years since we last approved a package, Ukrainians have endured two bitter winters of war.

It is time for us to act. Russian drones have continued to rain terror on civilian neighborhoods. Driven, in part, by their extraordinary advances in drone technology, however, Ukraine is carrying the day.

A generation of young Russians have been sacrificed for Putin's pride. In this moment at the end of my tenure in Congress, I hear echoes from its beginnings when the Cold War was in terminal phase.

Ronald Reagan traveled to Berlin in 1987. Standing in front of the Berlin Wall, just 2 years before it fell, he told of how the Soviets tried to outlast the West during that decade's nuclear-arms surge.

The Soviets had dug their heels in, but Reagan declared the alliance held firm. This is about the alliance holding firm.

Today, we can declare to Vladimir Putin, just as President Reagan did, that our alliance holds firm and that America holds firm. President Reagan had said earlier in 1983 our adversaries ``must be made to understand we will never . . . ''

President Reagan said in 1983 our adversaries ``must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards [nor] ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.''

He was talking about the Soviet Union and Russia today.

``To do so would mean abandoning the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment. This is a moment to choose between right and wrong and good and evil, not tomorrow, but today, tonight. This is a moment to stand with those who are fighting on the front lines for democracy, sovereignty, and international law.

This is a moment for all of us, together, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and our allies, to hold firm.

Let's hold firm and vote ``yes'' on this bill and send a message to the world and to the Ukrainians.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is his time, and I appreciate that.

I congratulate--I am not sure I like the way he did it--

--but what he did was get the Europeans to understand they needed to carry their part of the load. I congratulate him for doing that.

However, why they have surged is because they see the proximate, immediate danger caused by Russians' avaricious appetite for more land and empire. That is why they surged, and we ought to stay with them because we also need to be concerned about a leader in Putin who wants to create another empire.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) added the 218th signature to the discharge petition for the Ukraine Support Act.

Soon, the House will have a long-overdue vote on expressing its support for Ukraine and our opposition to the Russian invasion.

The people of Ukraine have shown their mettle and courage, even while a fifth of their country has been overrun and occupied, while Russia's drones target civilian neighborhoods amid outages of power and heat through bitter winters, the people of Ukraine have endured. Their spirit is undiminished. Their valor is unmatched.

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin continues to believe that he can break their will to fight. He believes he can outlast the Ukrainians and can outlast us. He is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, this House has now voted on bipartisan bills to assist Ukraine 12 times since the full invasion in 2022. On average, those bills have passed with 80 percent of the votes on this House floor. We have the opportunity to do it again, to stand with freedom, democracy, and our Ukrainian allies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when I was majority leader in 2008, Mr. Blunt, who was then in the leadership of the Republican Party, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, who co-chaired the Intel Committee in the United States Senate, and I worked together in a very difficult context.

That context was that the Bush administration had asked for information

from the telecoms. The telecoms had given them information, and there were really no firewalls as to what that information was.

The four of us worked with the Intelligence Committee of the House to come up with legislation which would solve the problem of making sure that we were secure as a country and that the privacy of our citizens was secure. We think we accomplished that objective.

In fact, the leadership in the Senate voted for it. President Obama, then a Member of the Senate, voted for it. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Clyburn, and I voted for it, along with others. The Republicans were overwhelmingly for it.

In September 2012, we did it again. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn voted for it. We did it again in January 2018, and Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Ryan, McCarthy, and Scalise all voted for it.

The point I will make is, this has been a bipartisan process with bipartisan Presidential buy-in to the necessity to have this legislation adopted to keep Americans safe while also adopting significant reforms in 2008 and some reforms thereafter to provide for the privacy protections to the American people.

It is a balance, but it is a balance that I think we have achieved. I think we ought to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do so.

Our FISA reauthorization bills are how Congress ensures that our Nation is protected in the first instance against threats from terrorist groups and foreign adversaries. Our intelligence services have the difficult task of catching threats before they materialize and are providing critical information to national security leaders.

As many here will remember, the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred after our national security agencies failed to identify, track, and coordinate known threats. Twenty-five years later, we have learned these lessons, and we continue to grapple with essential questions about how to balance the needs of our national security with protecting Americans' liberties.

That is an ongoing process, of course, and I know Democrats on the committee, led by Ranking Member Himes, were diligent in pushing for reforms to section 702 that would make those protections stronger for Americans while still delivering the tools needed. This bill does not include all the reforms.

None of the bills that we consider have all the things we would like to have in them, but in testimony from Avril Haines, who headed up the DNI under the Biden administration, she believes this is absolutely essential. Other members of the Obama administration and the Biden administration believe this legislation is essential.

I believe this legislation is essential, and I urge my colleagues, having worked on this since 2008, to adopt this legislation and make America as safe as we possibly can.

Will the gentleman who just spoke yield? Will the gentleman who just spoke, who is walking out, would you yield?

My time.

Excuse me.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman to whom I was addressing my question apparently doesn't want to yield and left the floor at the advice, probably, of somebody else.

You want to speak the truth? Even if you are new--and I have been here a little longer--there is a way to fund the TSA, to fund Secret Service, and it

is no sham. We don't even have to sign the discharge petition. Your Speaker, Mr. Speaker, just needs to bring the bill to the floor. It funds everybody in the Department of Homeland Security, other than ICE and CBP. You know that.

I addressed the Speaker. I said, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't mean I can't look at other people, Mr. Speaker.

We are in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the argument being made on the other side is not accurate. I will give them the benefit of the doubt because, perhaps, they don't know it is not accurate.

We have over 110 people who are prepared to vote for all of the funding in DHS other than both of the components who recently have snatched people off the streets of America, wearing hoods and no badges and putting them into unmarked cars. Yes, we are not for that.

The gentleman said he was--that I asked to yield--a law enforcement officer. I was going to ask him whether he ever wore a mask during the course of his duties, not a gas mask, a mask to keep him secret. I was going to ask him whether he ever went into a home without a warrant, inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Yes, we want to defend the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, unless you missed it, when we passed the appropriation bills that have funded most of the government, we did so, and we took DHS out and told you we are not for that. What you continue to do is to bring to this floor something we have told you we are not for.

Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker of the House brought that bill to the floor to fund all of DHS' components, except those two agencies, it would pass overwhelmingly today, within this hour. I guarantee it as a former majority leader. Assuming that all of you say, oh, we want to fund TSA, we want to fund Secret Service, we want to fund Coast Guard-- assuming that you would follow your rhetoric, it could be done like that. I say that as a majority leader of this House for 8 years, and I know of what I speak.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about shutdowns. Under Ronald Reagan, there were eight shutdowns. They lasted for an average, Mr. Speaker, of 1.3 days. Nine of those were weekend days. Why? Because Ronald Reagan and we Democrats who controlled the House were prepared to go to the table and make an agreement. If we couldn't make an agreement, we nevertheless funded the government.

This President has said numerous times, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a shutdown of the government, all of it.

Those of you who come to the floor and try to, like Pontius Pilate, wash responsibility away and blame it on Democrats because, yes, there are things on which we very strongly disagree, and that is the violation of the Constitution, the violation of statutes--and I would have asked my law enforcement friend--the violation of norms followed by every police department in America.

I am tired of hearing totally inaccurate information about some fraud bill. That is not the word that was used, Mr. Speaker, but that was implied. The bill that we want is no fraud. The bill we want would fund TSA, Secret Service, Coast Guard, CISA, and all other agencies in DHS tomorrow.

What is the majority bringing to the floor, Mr. Speaker? They are bringing a bill to the floor that has failed three times.

Why? The majority has done that because Democrats don't want warrantless searches. Democrats don't want people's doors being broken down without probable cause. Democrats don't want people apprehended by masked people. I grew up in an era when I was a young man where there were a lot of people wearing masks going around assaulting people. We didn't call them police.

Try to be honest with the American people. Mr. Speaker, we owe them that. Tell them, look, we are afraid that if we fund all of these components of which we all talk and support, if we do that, then we won't make as good a deal on DHS.

We won't keep them immune from following the Constitution. We won't keep them immune from following the laws of their State. We won't keep them immune from the norms that police follow.

Don't come to this floor and be dishonest and say Democrats are shutting down the government. We are not.

Democrats sure do want to raise the question and have a debate about whether we follow the Constitution in terms of law enforcement in this country.

Do you know why you have warrants? There are warrants because King George could go into any house at any time, every time that he wanted to, and the Founding Fathers thought that was wrong.

I see my chairman is standing, so he may want to speak himself and not have me take all the time.

I would plead with my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, be honest. Republicans are holding off that bill because they think tactically it will undermine what ICE is doing, undermining that two, three, four-- five people were killed by officers not following the law. Don't come here pretending that Democrats somehow are shutting down the government.

By the way, when Joe Biden was President of the United States, do you know how many shutdowns there were? Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is zero.

Mr. Speaker, let's fund the important services that the American people deserve. Let's have the Speaker put the bill on the floor and have 10 Republicans sign the discharge petition. We will put it on the floor, and we will pass it overwhelmingly, I predict.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me some time to try to correct the record that is being, unfortunately, made poorly on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman on the other side asked me to come back. I came back. He made a comment. I wanted to correct him. He would not yield for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of ICE is being funded. There are no silos being undermined, except by not funding all the other agencies that we are prepared to support--no silos.

Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of CBP is funded. You funded it, Mr. Speaker, in reconciliation at three times, essentially, what the annual appropriation was for those two agencies.

There ought not to be, again, this Pontius Pilate hand-wringing that somehow we have shut down those two agencies. We have not. You provided for that, Mr. Speaker, and they are funded.

The question is: Do you still want to use as a political tactic shutting down all the other agencies?

The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that we are paying the people who protect us, and this side will not admit it. DHS is getting 86 percent. ICE is 86 percent funded. CBP is 85 percent funded.

Don't tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, that they are not getting paid. They are getting paid, and you know it. If you say otherwise, you are misrepresenting the facts to the American people.

Now, somebody said ``our bill.'' It is not our bill. It is your bill. Most of you voted for this bill and every nickel that we are asking you to vote again on, because this was a compromised bill. All the funding that was in Ms. DeLauro's bill was a bipartisan agreement, all of it. That is not a political game. That is saying: We will take it.

What you are saying is: Unless you take everything, we are not going to give you anything. That is what you are saying.

Mr. Speaker, that is not how we legislate in this House. We have to compromise.

Now, we have some problems because you tell us if you don't allow ICE agents to break into homes without a warrant, we will not fund TSA, we will not fund the Coast Guard, we will not fund CISA. That is what you are saying, but you are trying to pretend to the American people that it is somehow us, who are ready to vote for 98 percent of the bill, but you say: No, either all or nothing.

Think about it honestly. You are shutting down TSA. The American people don't care who is at fault, so we are both trying to say the other guy is at fault. But today we could come together, all--at least 400 of us--and open TSA tonight. You won't do it because you want masked people arresting people on the streets of America without any accountability.

That is what this is about. Democrats want accountability. They want to honor the Constitution. They want to honor the laws of the United States. They want to honor the norms of police activity in this country.

That is what makes us different. We talk about an exceptional Nation. That is why we are exceptional, and that is why Democrats want to make sure those protections for the American people are included in this bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with one another. This is a tactical argument. You are afraid that if you separate out those two instances of the Border Patrol and ICE, you are afraid that you may have to honor what the American people want, and that is constraints. That is what you are against: constraints on illegal actions by police officers.

The American people are hoping that you will support constraints and support a bill, our bill. Republicans and Democrats put that bill together that

Ms. DeLauro has introduced. Open up the government and open it up today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Paul Marchand. With World Down Syndrome Day approaching this Saturday, this seemed an appropriate time to honor a titan in the national disability rights and disability policy community whose work transformed the lives of millions of people with disabilities and their families.

I have long admired him and his profound influence across the disability advocacy community--an arena in which I, too, have had the honor to work alongside countless families, advocates, and organizations. Over more than four decades, Paul Marchand helped shape the very foundation of modern federal disability policy.

Before coming to Washington, Paul served as a special education teacher and as a leader in Rhode Island's developmental disability community--bringing a deep understanding of families, educators, and individuals on the ground to his national work.

Paul joined The Arc of the United States' Public Policy Office in 1973 and became its Director in 1975. At a time when the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities were too often ignored, he fought to ensure that those voices were heard within the halls of Congress and across the federal government. He also helped found what became the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, and he served as its Chair from 1975 through 2000. During his tenure, the coalition grew from fewer than a dozen organizations to a coalition of more than hundred disability organizations nationwide. The consummate consensus-builder, Paul united a diverse community around common goals of civil rights, inclusion, and opportunity.

Paul was deeply involved in the passage of some of the most consequential pieces of disability-rights legislation in our Nation's history. That includes early victories in the movement, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act in 1980, and Child Abuse Treatment Amendments of 1984. He played a leading role in securing the enactment of each of these laws.

Crucially, he was a champion for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which I was proud to sponsor in the House alongside my friend Tony Coelho. That historic bill didn't just change the law; it changed hearts and minds across America. It changed how Americans perceive and treat the disability community. Paul helped make it happen. He did the same with the ADA Amendments Act in 2008. Additionally, he helped secure nine reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, helping expand early intervention services, preschool programs, family supports, and legal protections for children with disabilities and their families. He was equally influential in strengthening employment opportunities and protections through repeated reauthorizations of the Rehabilitation Act, including the creation of supported employment, and in embedding disability provisions into broader workforce and job training legislation.

In addition to his legislative work, Paul served in leadership roles with the Center on Effective Government, SourceAmerica, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, and he was appointed by the Clinton Administration to the National Commission on Childhood Disability.

Paul retired in 2011 believing that the disability movement stood on the threshold of full inclusion. His optimism was rooted not in rhetoric but in decades of hard-earned progress shaped by his integrity, perseverance, and unwavering belief in the worth of every person. While we continue to work toward that goal, we get closer to its fulfillment seemingly every day.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is more just, more accessible, and more compassionate because of Paul Marchand's life of service. I am honored to recognize his remarkable legacy and to extend the gratitude of this House to a man who devoted his career to expanding opportunity and protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the American people obviously have to be so confused about this debate because one side claims they are bringing us an amendment, the balanced budget amendment, and their history has been-- and I have been here for some time, but Ronald Reagan increased the budget by 189 percent.

Why do I say Ronald Reagan did it? Because he could have vetoed any spending bill, and we would not have overridden that veto.

In 2001, we cut taxes and were told by our Republican colleagues it would raise additional moneys. It did not.

Then some, particularly those who are claiming we made a deal and we are keeping it to get this constitutional amendment on the floor--what was the deal for? The deal was to vote for the big, bad bill, which created $4.7 trillion of additional deficit.

That is a tough way to want to balance the budget. We have a paying- for problem. That is the discipline, a paying-for problem, not a spending or revenue problem. What we have is a paying problem.

If we would pay for things, which presumably this constitutional amendment would seek, then we would not have this continuing deficit, but you and I both know we are not going to do that, and you haven't done it. We haven't done it.

Jodey Arrington is right to that extent. This is a problem where we do not recognize the real problems of why we are so deeply in debt, and we pretend cutting nickels and dimes will make a difference.

Now, they are big nickels and dimes. I get that, but the fact of the matter is, it is dishonest in my view for me or anybody else to come to the floor and say: I want to balance the budget and then vote for the largest creation of debt ever on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this amendment and defeat of the suspension bill.

Madam Speaker, this has been a historic week in many ways. We have significant disagreements in this House. I rose a few days ago to say to all the House Members on both sides of the aisle that we ought to move on behalf of the American people legislation and policies on which we agree and not allow them to be lost or unaddressed because of the fact that we have other matters on which we disagree.

That is a successful strategy for families, for human beings, for business, and for life, to not allow the things on which we disagree be an impediment to moving us forward on things we can agree on.

I rise this morning because we are going to have two items about which I am greatly concerned on the floor today. Actually, one of them will be on the floor and one will not. I am concerned about the one that will be, and I am concerned about the one that will not. I want to speak briefly about them.

We will be considering a bill on the floor today that will fund the Department of Homeland Security. There is within that bill two items on which the parties disagree. There are also within that bill literally a score, twoscore, perhaps threescore on which we agree. Those items will affect whether or not we pay people who are working for the Federal Government and for the American people.

A number of them are very important items. One is the TSA, the Transportation Security Agency, which we all see at airports. As far as I can tell, everybody in this House, all 435, believe they ought to be paid.

We will have on the sea surrounding our country and perhaps in other places, the Coast Guard patrolling for the sanctity of our borders, for the safety of our mariners, and for the safety both of commercial and noncommercial vessels.

There is also an agency within the Department of Homeland Security called the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to jurisdictions and to people when disasters occur causing great damage to communities and to people. As far as I can tell, everybody is for funding that agency.

The Secret Service, particularly at a time of war but at all times, has a very difficult job. They are called essential employees. They are working now, but they are not being paid. As far as I can tell, everybody in the House believes they ought to be paid.

Now we have a disagreement over the way that the ICE, otherwise known as the immigration service, is handling its work, its duties. Some of us believe that they are doing things that are outside the boundary of the Constitution, the laws of our country and our States, and the norms of police activity. It is a significant, important difference of opinion that ought to be argued, that ought to be resolved, and we resolve things through a vote on this floor.

The Border Patrol is also involved not at the border but in the interior of our country. That is not usual and it has resulted, in the opinion of some of us, in the taking of American lives inconsistent with the safety of American citizens and inconsistent with the norms of police work in America in our counties and in our cities and in our States.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I hope that we will vote on a motion to recommit which funds all of the Federal employees in question and represents honestly to the American people that the customs agency and ICE are already funded and were funded at the beginning of this year.

Mr. Speaker, ICE agents are being paid. Border Patrol agents are being paid. The representation to the American people that somehow we have shut down the agents of ICE is not true. You can correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I am told.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth that I hear from some of my colleagues--Republicans can fund right now through a unanimous consent all the people who they are lamenting are not being paid. You have it in your power, or the Speaker has it in his power, to agree to a unanimous consent to pass the gentlewoman's bill.

Everybody that you are wringing your hands about--not you, sir. Mr. Speaker, I speak to you. The hands that are being wrung are totally without merit. We will vote for--and by the way, we did not vote for the Department of Homeland Security on our side. There were seven of us. The rest of us voted ``no'' because we didn't agree with what the Department of Homeland Security and ICE were doing--not TSA, not Coast Guard, not the other agencies, but ICE and CBP. We don't agree with what they are doing.

What you are doing, Mr. Speaker, on that side of the aisle is to hold everybody else hostage for a bill that we did not vote for. Stop saying we made some deal. Our deal was to separate it out, and we were against it. That was the deal. That is what I did. I voted for all the rest of the bills, as my side did, and I voted against the Department of Homeland Security because we want what they are doing stopped to protect the American people.

I say to my friends who keep wringing their hands like Pontius Pilate that somebody is not paying them, the people who are not paying everybody other than CBP and ICE, who are being paid out of a huge fund that they have available to them, are the people that you will not let go.

We are for funding everybody but the two agencies we have mentioned and have a difference of opinion on. Pontius Pilate could not rid himself of the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the American people through you, so I address the Speaker and the American people.

You must be confused by this debate. We have two relatively new Members of the Congress who have spoken. I came in as Mr. Jack was speaking and he said that we need to open DHS. We certainly have agreement on about 80 percent of that, but the Republicans are saying unless you agree to 100 percent, we are not going to agree to opening DHS that ought to be opened during this time of war.

The Secret Service could be funded this afternoon. The Speaker just has to say the word because our side will vote to open up the agencies, but we have a difference of opinion with respect to two components of DHS that we believe are violating the Constitution of the United States.

We agree that we ought to open Secret Service. We agree that we ought to open FEMA. We agree that we ought to open cybersecurity, but what is your answer to saying: But if you don't do it all, we will not open those agencies and have the employees paid, who, of course, are critical employees.

You don't have an answer to that other than you want to muscle through something that has been questioned by many courts in this land.

Now let me read you a statement that was made by the border czar.

After a court said you must do this, the border czar, Tom Homan, who was in Minneapolis, who--by the way, Border Patrol killed Alex Pretti. Here is what the border czar said. Perhaps you don't care, but he said this: ``I don't care what the judges think.'' ``I don't care . . . ''

Yes, we here on this floor, and the Democrats on the floor in the United States Senate believe that is improper policy for law enforcement to say, to do, to act, to threaten people with: I don't care what the judges say.

Bring Ms. DeLauro's bill to the floor. It will pass. It will pass this afternoon, and all of those agents you have mentioned will be funded.

In addition to that, I don't know that I have heard it mentioned, but in the bill that was passed earlier this year, DHS was funded. ICE was funded with $150 billion, so don't get on this floor and pretend that somehow it is not funded because that is not true.

Bring this bill to the floor. We agree on it overwhelmingly. Do not allow the disagreement to undermine the agreement we have, particularly at a time of war when we ought to be united.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, these new Members of Congress apparently don't know what I am saying. We will vote to open DHS, including the Secretary's office, this afternoon, 1 hour from now, 2 hours from now. Bring it to the floor. Do not put in it what we all call a poison pill, and that is two components that are already funded--already funded.

Democrats and Republicans together can start paying the others today, but for the objection to the unanimous consent.