Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Los Alamos Public Schools in New Mexico, which is the 2023 College Board Advanced Placement Small District of the Year.

Every year, the College Board honors three districts with an Advanced Placement District of the Year award. Each represents a small, medium, or large district and has achieved the most significant increases in AP Exam scores. They have also expanded access to Advanced Placement courses for a greater diversity of students. The College Board awarded Los Alamos Public Schools this distinction from over 12,000 school districts across the U.S. and Canada as the national leader among small-sized school districts.

Advanced Placement courses provide avenues to higher education opportunities and unlock many doors for students. Los Alamos Public Schools had 40 percent or more of its graduating cohort take at least one Advanced Placement exam. Their scores demonstrate high-level achievement. This proves that our students have the potential to excel when offered challenging educational opportunities. The award is a great testament to the hard work and commitment of the administrators, educators, families, and students of Los Alamos.

Los Alamos Public Schools is a wonderful example of the excellence and achievement that exemplify the great state of New Mexico. I commend the educational community whose dedication and work ethic paved the way for this well-deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, when I helped clients win asylum cases as a young law student, I heard the tragic stories of how they fled their countries, carrying with them fear and pain but little else.

It is already very hard to win asylum. You must first show that you have a credible fear of being persecuted in your home country. Asylum seekers must later prove their claims in an administrative or court process.

There are many things wrong with our immigration system, but showing credible fear is the right first step. Now, we are seeing major permanent proposed changes to our asylum law as a condition for emergency funding for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific.

I stand in strong support of this emergency aid. It is essential, but just as it was wrong to tie Israeli aid to gutting the IRS' ability to go after tax cheats, it is wrong to tie harmful, significant, and permanent changes to asylum law to passing essential aid for our allies.

Instead, we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need to protect our Dreamers, and we need to support our allies. Our Latino communities, our asylum seekers, and our allies abroad deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, House Republicans are spending a week on legislation that fails to solve many of the very real issues facing our constituents.

Last week, when I was in my district, my constituents shared with me their aspirations, their worries, and their vision for how to make our communities thrive for generations. Veterans from Hobbs described how hard it is to travel for access to healthcare and other services-- services that they have earned.

Seniors from Hobbs described the concern about paying their bills on a fixed income and the need to reduce costs. The Lovington mayor led us on a tour of the wastewater plant as he described the need to invest in water infrastructure in rural communities and thanked us for doing that and promoting such investment.

In Taos, New Mexico, ranchers and farmers working with the New Mexico Acequia Association, which for those of you who don't know, is a centuries-old system of providing irrigation to farmers and ranchers in New Mexico.

They talked to me about their concerns about growing their business amid the climate crisis that we are seeing and the drought conditions. These are real challenges that our constituents want us to fix, challenges that Congress has the ability and responsibility to address.

Does this rule make in order any bills to help address veterans' need to access healthcare?

Does it make in order any bills to help seniors pay their bills?

Does it help our rural communities access rural clean water systems?

Does it help our farmers keep their heritage and grow our foods?

Nope. It doesn't.

What are we doing this week?

We have a bill that prevents the use of Federal lands to provide temporary shelters for certain noncitizens, including migrants who are legally applying for asylum. It is a bill that fails to address the humanitarian crisis or security needs at our border.

Our colleagues across the aisle have consistently repeated harmful theories, like the invasion theory, where they seek to demonize the communities I represent and from which I come. Their talking points simply inflame the issue rather than looking to solve it.

This is just more of the same from a majority that is unable to govern effectively. Instead, we should pass legislation that actually improves our immigration system and acknowledges and upholds the dignity of immigrant communities.

There are real solutions to deal with the border. The Republican majority just doesn't want us to vote on them on this floor.

For example, the Dream and Promise Act has vast support from Americans, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?

Nope.

The Farmer Workforce Modernization Act that has bipartisan support would help agricultural communities and help farmworkers, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?

Nope.

We could move these bills, if only Republicans would stop blocking them. We will also consider today a resolution to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule. That rule would require lenders to collect and report information about the small business credit applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data, lending decisions, and the price of credit.

We know that many rural small businesses struggle with access to financial resources. It is important to know whether or not the banks, especially the big banks, are serving them.

Americans, the middle class, and small businesses want somebody on their side because they know the big banks and corporations aren't. That is why Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Despite the strong public support, Republicans continue to attack the Bureau. The Democrats are on the side of small businesses when we stand up for the Bureau and its work.

We should support initiatives to bring capital to entrepreneurs and innovators, especially in rural America. A lot of that work happens because of credit unions, I might add. I support efforts to address the credit unions' concerns about the smaller entities.

A CRA, though, as proposed by the Republicans, is an overly broad and blunt tool that prevents an agency from promulgating any regulation in an area that it addresses.

This CRA that they have put forward would tie the hands of the Bureau. It would prevent them from rulemaking regarding data for small businesses, women-and minority-owned businesses.

We need access to this data to make sure that small businesses, women- and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses have access to capital. Investing in these small businesses is how we grow the middle class, and that is what Democrats are focused on. How do we grow the middle class.

Lastly, H.R. 5961 would freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 2023 hostage deal between the U.S. and Iran. We must acknowledge, and do acknowledge, that Iran is dangerous and a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow the terror to continue.

I must remind my Republican colleagues that the Rules Committee already reported a rule for this bill. Their own party blocked the House from voting on this bill when they voted down the rule on the floor.

This week we should be debating a bill with aid for our allies, including Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others around the world, but I guess we are not.

I guess we should not be surprised with this rule. This is just a continuation of the chaos and closed process that has been a hallmark of this Republican-led House. We have seen over 40 closed rules on the floor that have blocked two-thirds of bipartisan amendments, including blocking half of all Republican amendments.

Republican leadership clearly hasn't made good on their promise to make the legislative process more open, inclusive, and accommodating.

This year, Republicans will have wasted nearly a month on internal politics just to elect a Speaker--time that could have been spent lowering costs for seniors and helping those veterans I mentioned earlier, time that could have been spent helping our farmers and ranchers, time that could have been spent helping to grow our middle class.

As Republicans continue to press forward legislation that seeks to further destroy and divide, House Democrats are working to improve the lives of everyday people.

House Democrats are committed to putting people over politics, to do what is right for everyday Americans; lowering costs, growing the middle class, and defending fundamental freedoms.

As we have all year, House Democrats continue to extend the hand of partnership to get things done for the American people, including passing legislation that invests in working families and keeping our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills.

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

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

This entire Congress, Republicans have tended to use titles for their bills that are extremely misleading. For example, today's rule includes the so-called Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act. Interestingly, though, this bill does not actually secure the border. In fact, it does not include any resources for States to deal with migrants who are awaiting processing. How is that protecting our communities? Let's invest where we need to address this issue.

Instead of addressing real problems at the border, Republicans are bringing up this unnecessary legislation to attack vulnerable migrants under the guise of protecting public lands. Remember, this is a public lands bill. It came out of the Natural Resources Committee. If they really cared about protecting public lands, they wouldn't have passed an Interior appropriations bill out of their committee that cuts nearly a billion dollars from the Federal land management agencies that are tasked with protecting these public lands.

The concern really isn't about protecting public lands, and it is not really about addressing the real immigration concerns. If they were really, truly interested in that, they would work with us to address the root causes of migration.

The most effective way to control the number of asylum-seekers arriving at our ports of entry is to help them stay in their home countries. They talk about that in some of their bills, but look at what they say and what they do.

Let's focus on what they actually do. They have put forward appropriations bills that actually cut funding for customs and border officers. They cut CBP funding. They cut money for fentanyl interdiction. That is what they actually do.

They may have bills with fancy titles and all this talk, but what happens when it comes to what they are funding? They are not funding with the necessary resources to address these issues.

For example, the last time we were in the Rules Committee, they were cutting funding for the FBI, DEA, and law enforcement agencies that we need to work on these issues. They are not supporting the kind of cutting-edge inspection machines that we need to detect fentanyl at our southwestern border ports of entry, like in the President's national security supplemental request.

I asked them if they were going to support the national security supplemental request with those provisions in it, if they were going to support the Democratic amendments in the border package earlier this year that would have made that bill better.

It is not a great bill. They focus on that wall. They are fixated on that wall. It is not what we need. We have seen report after report that it does not work. They just keep using migrants to score political points. This is the third bill we have seen this year, but none of them are true solutions.

If they were serious about solving the issues at our border, they would work with us on comprehensive legislation instead of these things that do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The problem isn't in New York City. It is their failure to work with us on legislation that would solve the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support for proposed section 1071, CFPB rule, which highlights the benefits of collecting lending demographic data for small farmers and farmers of color.

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

This letter tells us a lot about how Democrats see the issues in rural America, how Democrats see the issues affecting our small businesses, our women-owned businesses, and our minority-owned businesses. It is one of wanting to make sure that the playing field is level, that there is transparency and fairness at the same time that we use the market to build up thriving communities.

This is a letter that comes from ranchers, farmers, cooperatives, our rural areas. It is signed by dozens of organizations, and they read that the section 1071 rule is profarmer. Young, beginning, and small farmers have consistently demanded more transparent and fair markets.

Having accurate and public data will help farmers and consumers make better-informed financial decisions.

For some reason, the Republicans don't want to make sure that we have access to this data. What are they hiding? If big banks aren't serving our rural farmers, let's find that out.

This isn't just about that. This is about promarket. They say section 1071 is promarket. The data required by section 1071 will help lenders identify unmet credit needs and expand new markets.

This is important if we are going to grow the middle class. Once again, I was a small business owner. I had a woman-owned business. I went and sought credit. I filled out those forms. It wasn't that hard. I wrote down that, yes, I am a woman-owned business, and, yes, I am a minority-owned business. I am a Latina. I am proud of it. I am from a State capital, by the way, the oldest State capital in the United States, which is very pro-immigrant because we know of the economic benefits it provides.

We know that having access to this information is good for our small businesses. It is good for rural America. Therefore, we are very much in support of this rule, despite the fact that, once again, Republicans want to hammer and beat up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite the great work it does for our consumers, the great work it does for our small businesses, the great work it does for Americans, which is why they support it the way they do.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that clearly states that the people's House will keep its solemn promise to American seniors and workers. We will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these crucial programs that so many of our constituents depend on.

Reaffirming our promise is more important than ever. Republicans on the Budget Committee today, as we speak, are holding a hearing about fiscal commissions that could slash Social Security and Medicare. We cannot allow that to happen.

The top candidates for President in the Republican Party are also calling for cuts to Social Security. The House must stand against that. Democrats in the House will stand against that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually the debate around Social Security, similar to the debate about the Consumer Protection Bureau and its regulations, does highlight the policies that the Democrats and Republicans pursue and who are the beneficiaries of those policies.

Let's look at Social Security and what the Republican Budget Committee is looking at. They are looking at raising the retirement age. Who actually pays for that?

When you raise the retirement age, it is going to be the janitors, nurses, educators, and the people doing the hard work in our manufacturing plants that are going to be required to work longer. They are going to be the ones who are going to have a hard time because they don't have additional savings like the wealthy. Right?

The wealthy aren't going to care about whether you raise the age to 67, 68, or 72 because they have the assets and they are not relying on Social Security. It is our workers who have paid into Social Security who have earned it and deserve it. They deserve to receive the benefits that we promised them when they started working and paying into the system.

What can we do to make sure that Social Security is solvent in the future?

Well, Democrats have a bill that we introduced last year, and we supported it this year. You make sure everybody pays--no matter how much money you make--into the system. Right now we know that the wealthy stop paying into the system at about $147,000.

Why doesn't everybody pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings?

Why aren't the wealthy paying their fair share?

That is a policy difference. It is the policy distinctions that we are focused on.

Once again, Democrats are standing with working Americans who are not earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, or $1 million a year. We say you should pay your fair share of your Social Security taxes rather than doing what they want to do, which is gut benefits. When you raise the Social Security age, you are gutting the benefits.

That is an example of the distinction of when you are standing with working Americans and when your policies that you support are increasing the middle class instead of standing with the wealthy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember why we faced inflation in the first place. We need to remember that this country and the world faced down a pandemic that threatened to destroy our economy.

Let's go back to those dark days when we moved from the Trump Presidency to the Biden Presidency. Our businesses were closed. Our Main Streets were going to fall apart. Our city, local, and State governments were worried about whether they would be able to keep people on the payroll.

The Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, and we did rescue the economy indeed. I go to my working-class district because my entire district is like that. That is my family. I come from those roots. I speak to those people on a regular basis.

Every town I go into, I look at the number of loans, the PPP, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, and they are open now. Those communities are thriving because of the work we did. That was not the reason we saw inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review.

Mr. Speaker, this is an article titled: ``How Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation?''

Firms raised markups to 2021 in anticipation of future cost pressures contributing to about 60 percent. Every American knows that record profits added to inflation. They just keep on trying to blame it on the fact that we kept our small businesses open. That is not the case. We made sure that people did not get thrown out of their homes.

It is the big corporations that they protect with their policies, and they want to make sure that they can cheat on their taxes. They bring that up every little while. He brought up issues with regard to Israel. Well, you know, they didn't allow a clean bill to come to the floor because they wanted to make sure that tax cheats could continue cheating on their taxes. They wanted to cut that funding.

We know that those kinds of things hurt America. We know that part of the reason for inflation was because of Putin's war, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and what happened to the markets from that.

On that side of the aisle, we have the Putin protectors who are fighting back and do not want to provide any resources to Ukraine.

So, the majority should not start talking to me about inflation when the majority's policies are continuing to add to those problems.

You might know, Mr. Speaker, that neither this Congress nor this Presidency controls interest rates. That is the Federal Reserve. We do not control that. The President does not control that.

I would love to see interest rates come down because they do impact jobs. The fact that we had the lowest job growth of the Biden administration tells you--oh, my God, you had to compare it just to the Biden administration because the job growth has been phenomenal under this administration. It has been phenomenal based on the policies of what we did in the last Congress. We have added so many jobs.

We are seeing that the Inflation Reduction Act is bringing down inflation. Inflation is lower now than it was 1 year ago. Fact-check that. Yes, indeed, we have brought down inflation.

We are creating good manufacturing jobs. In New Mexico, we are creating manufacturing jobs. We are now manufacturing wind turbines. We are manufacturing solar facilities. We are manufacturing more now in New Mexico than we have done in the past.

Those are the kinds of things that are being created with the policies that Democrats supported and were signed into law last Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the comment about not talking about interest rates. The gentleman talked about mortgage rates, and mortgage rates are tied to the Federal Reserve. So, once again, understanding how our economy works and which agency and entity has control over that is very important.

I also want to talk about the idea of who is trusted. He mentioned some polls with regard to who is trusted on the economy. The reality is that we are right now in the people's House. We are the Representatives who are closest to the people and who are out there meeting with them. This is what the Founders intended. When the Founders created the House of Representatives, they wanted to make sure that we were a miniature of America and that we were in constant communication.

I know that that is what we do. I know that is what my colleagues do and what I do. We go out and talk with them. We listen to their stories and bring them back. We decide, based on what we hear, what we are going to prioritize.

I like the fact that Democrats, that my party, those of us on this side of the aisle, go out to listen and come back and push for policies that are going to lower costs, like the Inflation Reduction Act did where we lowered the cost of prescription drugs and where we made sure that nobody is going to pay more than $35 a month for insulin. People have been asking for that.

For the first time, we are going to negotiate with Big Pharma to bring down those costs where there is going to be a $2,000 out-of- pocket limit for

prescription drugs. These are important ways in which we are lowering costs.

We are lowering costs by making sure that we are providing homeowners and renters with the ability to lower their energy costs, whether that is putting in renewable energy facilities and solar panels or insulating homes.

Those are the kinds of things that my colleagues across the aisle, my good friends, might not understand, like how important it is to insulate your house. I am from where it is cold, so getting those insulation credits is important. It lowers costs.

Because of this work that we have done, I know that there is an aggregated poll out that points to the fact that Democrat incumbents are trusted in the House at a rate that is so further beyond our Republicans. They are underwater by 14 points. Their own constituents know that they are not fighting for their economic benefit.

Nevertheless, what we have seen this year is chaos and dysfunction take over the House under Republican leadership. While Democrats have been ready to put people over politics and deliver for America through bipartisan legislation, our colleagues across the aisle continue to introduce bills like we are considering today that focus more on culture wars and nonsolutions.

Today, we have an immigration bill that does not address the root causes of migration, offer solutions for our broken systems, or provide any resources to help the U.S. citizenship or immigration system or Customs and Border Patrol address an increase in migrants.

In this bill, they might talk about a lot of things, but that is not what this bill does. This bill does not address any of those key issues. Instead, it restricts the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture's ability to manage their lands. These agencies are in charge of managing our public lands, and we need to let them do their job.

We have a bill that fails to help our small businesses even when we know that SBA low-interest loans have helped thousands of entrepreneurs grow their businesses and the economy. Instead, they would seek to make those Federal loans less transparent and would cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to address disparities in lending.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Hobbs High School Boys Soccer team.

On Saturday November 11, the Hobbs High School Eagles won the New Mexico AAAAA State Soccer championship. The championship was their first in 26 years. This capped off an amazing unbeaten season with 23 wins and a national ranking. The state final against Atrisco Heritage Academy was a thrilling game. It couldn't have been closer. The game was tied after both regular gameplay and overtime--but our Eagles prevailed 3-2 in penalty kicks. Congratulations to first-year coach Reyes Marquez and the entire Eagles team for a stellar season.

I include in the Record the names of every member of the Hobbs High School Boys Soccer team:

Fabian Astorga, Jordan Barron, Juan Caamano, Juan Camacho,

Diego Castanon, Zander Castillo, Joshua Chavez, Josue Davila,

Azael De La Cruz, Franklin Ferrufino Lagos, Eliud Hernandez,

Humberto Hernandez, Jorge Martinez, Andrik Morales, Raul

Morales, Omari Patton, Brandon Rodriguez, Domnique Salas,

Adrian Sanchez, Alexis Sanchez, and Nathan Villalobos.

Let's also not forget the incredible work of Coach Reyes Marquez, Assistant Coach Esteban Sotelo, Assistant Coach Chris Middleton, Assistant Coach Melvon Anders, Assistant Coach Louie Vega, Manager Haskel Nguyen, and Athletic Programs Director Brenda Wilson for their mentorship and the program they have created.

The Eagles should be proud of their accomplishments. This is the first state championship for any school in Southern New Mexico in the AAAAA classification since 2013. Their hard work and perseverance should be commended and applauded.

I often say, small places can do big things. And the Eagles have proven how much our beloved rural communities can achieve once again.

Go Eagles.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Hobbs High School Career and Technical Education Center (CTECFI) located at Hobbs High School.

The Hobbs High School CTECH program is one of the premier technical education high school programs in the entire nation. In 2023 alone, CTECH received numerous awards, including being named one of the top 10 high schools in the entire Nation for NC3 certification.

The program prepares the next generation of highly-skilled workers in an array of industries and fields, including transportation, manufacturing, construction and architecture, energy, information technology, culinary, and hospitality.

Educators and community members alike should be proud of their school and the CTECH program, not only for these accomplishments but also for the lasting impact that the program will have on their community and New Mexico as a whole.

Serving students since 2022, this program will create opportunities for countless New Mexicans to secure good-paying and high-demand jobs far into the future. These students will build our economy, they will build vibrant communities, they will build families that I hope stay in our beloved New Mexico. Thank you to the wonderful staff, administrators, and teachers who have made this program such a gem in our beloved state.

Yet another example of how small places can do big things and a nod to the innovation and drive of our beloved New Mexico communities.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, today we have yet another extreme Republican appropriations bill that focuses more on tax breaks for wealthy tax cheats than keeping our communities safe.

When asked what bothers them most about taxes, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they feel that the wealthy and corporations are not paying their fair share. Instead of making sure the IRS has the tools it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats, this bill slashes its budget by $22 billion.

For every dollar cut from IRS law enforcement, we tend to lose $2 in tax revenue. Republicans are clearly bad at budgeting when they are giving away revenue.

But wait, there is more. Republicans like to say they are the party of law and order, but this bill also cuts the FBI's law enforcement work by $400 million. Cutting the FBI's budget would hurt our rural communities. FBI agents can bring in technology and tools that help solve crimes that a small police force, like in my district, just don't have.

How can we expect to interdict fentanyl in our rural areas or to go after criminal cartels when we are cutting the FBI and cutting the Department of Justice, which would prosecute those despicable traffickers of death and despair?

Republicans are clearly bad at making sure criminals are investigated, charged, tried, and sent to prison.

But wait, that is not all. While Democrats are putting people over politics and growing the middle class, the extreme Republican appropriations bills are blockading the road to the middle class. This appropriations bill cuts the pathway to prosperity when it cuts economic development programming to 51 percent below last year's levels.

In New Mexico, these cuts would jeopardize local and Tribal economic development projects helping us grow jobs and businesses after the closure of coal mines and coal plants. These cuts would take economic funding down to a level not seen since 2014. Extreme Republicans are clearly looking backward.

My focus in Congress must be toward a future of hope, prosperity, and opportunity.

At the Rules Committee yesterday, Republicans told me they didn't have a choice but to make these cuts. That is not true. Remember, they are choosing to give up billions of dollars of tax revenue owed by wealthy tax cheats. Republicans built the deficit. In 2017, 2003, and 2001, Republicans chose tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. Their choices tell us their priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice but to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and if we ever see it on the floor, vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana, Mrs. Houchin, for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, after wasting weeks as Republicans tried to get their house in order, we have just 10 days left to fund the government or we shut down.

My colleagues across the aisle might say that the House has already passed 7 of 12 funding bills, but they know those bills are so extreme that they won't get the necessary Democratic or Republican votes in the Senate and don't have any chance of becoming law.

We are reviewing another extreme bill today, H.R. 4664, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024.

Let's start with the numbers. The bill is 58 percent below last year's level. If any of you had a business or just balanced your housing budget, what would happen if you cut almost 60 percent from what you had to spend from one year to the next? Your business or your household would fail.

If a budget reflects your values, this extreme Republican bill values the wealthy, the well-connected, the fraudsters, and the scammers.

A family putting their baby to bed tonight knows cribs are safe. The babies aren't being strangled because of the work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which recently turned 50.

What are Republicans doing in this bill to this well-honored and respected

Commission? They are cutting their funding by 10 percent, so big corporations can put profit over safety. Right now a small business entrepreneur in a rural community or an affordable housing developer in an urban neighborhood that the big banks ignore can secure financing from a community development financial institution.

What is H.R. 4664 doing about those great affordable housing opportunities? They are cutting the CDFI funding by $45 million. They are cutting the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurship program by $72 million. They are destroying opportunities that could be created in small places that big banks just don't care about.

We want to grow the middle class and lower costs for Americans, but this bill would do the opposite by slashing the budgets of the agencies that protect consumers.

American consumers can sometimes feel helpless against the robocalls, the credit card and bank fees, and the financial scammers. Well, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped those consumers get $19 billion back when they went after those scammers, when they went after those excessive fees. However, this bill would weaken this agency, an agency that was born out of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession, a crisis that I will remind everybody occurred on Republicans' watch and brought great suffering to families and businesses.

This bill also undermines oversight of Wall Street when it cuts the SEC by $149 million. Remember the SEC? It also came into existence, but this time during the Great Depression. In each financial crisis we have mentioned, Democratic Congresses and Presidents stood with small businesses and working families against greed. Yes, the greed of Wall Street and the greed of payday lenders.

This bill tells us that extreme Republicans are okay with dangerous or defective products making their way into homes. Indeed, last night, one Republican Member said we should just get rid of the Consumer Product Safety Commission or just let them make recommendations, maybe Congress will act. It is ridiculous to get rid of this important consumer product safety agency.

Finally, this bill rescinds $10.2 billion from funding we gave to the IRS last year. Then it cuts more funds for the IRS to modernize or protect itself from cybersecurity threats. Why would you want to make the IRS vulnerable to cybersecurity threats?

To add insult, the bill would keep the IRS from developing a program so Americans can file their taxes for free. Really? You want to make sure for-profit companies can charge taxpayers to file their taxes? How cynical is that?

At a time when Americans are worried about fentanyl killing their loved ones, this bill cuts funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

At a time when Americans are worried about terrorism, this bill cuts funding for the National Security Council and Homeland Security Advisory Council.

While this bill cuts funding for CDFI, Democrats are fighting to grow the middle class by making housing more affordable.

While Republicans cut funding to the SBA, we are putting people over politics by supporting small businesses.

Democrats, as we have been saying for the last 3 years, put people over politics.

Unfortunately, this weekend the Republican Speaker of the House stated he would not put people over politics. Well, today's appropriations bill actually proves that.

I will end where I started. There are just 11 days to fund the government. We need spending bills that are bipartisan, that address the real needs of American taxpayers instead of just protecting the wealthy and well off.

House Democrats want to work in a bipartisan manner to get things done for the American people, but we will not stand for the extreme culture wars, the attacks on reproductive healthcare, and the draconian cuts House Republicans keep putting up for a vote in these appropriations bills.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Americans know that the climate catastrophe is wreaking havoc on our economy.

I come from a State where we lost billions due to wildfires that were caused by many factors, but this repeats itself over and over again.

Across America, there is no place that is safe from the climate catastrophe: the flooding, the hurricanes, the fires, the drought, and those cost money.

They cost our farmers money. They cost our ranchers money, our cities, our towns, our governments, and so yes, we must address that.

In fact, this administration was elected precisely because he said he would address that. We need to emphasize that. To pretend that there isn't an economic cost is to put your head in the sand.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), my wonderful colleague representing the District

of Columbia, which is a Democratically elected city, and we should respect it as such.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), an esteemed Member who I look forward to hearing his viewpoints on the importance of addressing the urgent needs that Americans have told us about such as how do we lower costs, how do we make sure that we bring into line Americans' dreams with Americans' realities.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again that these draconian spending cuts are necessary because of the deficit, but let's take a step back and think about how we got here in the first place and what we really can do about it.

We need to remember that 36 percent of the debt is due to Republican tax cuts, the Iraq war, the Republican war. This does not include the $12.5 billion that Republicans are adding to the deficit from their cuts to the IRS last week.

Clearly, Republicans like to talk about this, but they don't fix the problem. Indeed, they are the problem. Their tax cuts are the problem.

While the House GOP continues to blame critical social, economic development, and law enforcement programs for the Nation's debt, they hide the fact that if it weren't for those tax cuts enacted under President Bush and President Trump, our debt wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, the report shows that revenues would have kept up with spending if we wouldn't have had these tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, let's remind people where those tax cuts went. Who benefited? The wealthy and the corporations that to this day still do not pay their fair share in taxes.

If you want to address the issue of the deficit, let's address the issue of the tax cuts, which you can see on this chart are primarily due to the Trump and the Bush tax cuts, which isn't included on here, or the Reagan tax cuts, which is when we started this downward spiral.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which clearly states that it is the people's House's duty to keep our promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and to fight against any cuts to these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia), to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I will touch on the idea that the Trump tax cuts are suddenly the Pelosi tax cuts. That is ridiculous. We know the Trump tax cuts. They claimed them. They want to extend them. In fact, they have already been working on a bill in the Ways and Means Committee that would increase tax cuts for the wealthy, but let's put that aside.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about something else that is in this bill that is very problematic. We know that we are in a period when elections are so key, and preserving the integrity of our elections and making sure that those who work on the democratic process, the day-to- day process of making sure that our elections work, have all the help that they can get.

Right now, State and local election administrators are working hard to make sure that is possible, but they are afraid.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 2023 Brennan Center poll analysis about the high turnover of election officials amid safety threats and political interference.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4664 would make it harder for those hardworking election officials to do their jobs.

This bill cuts funding for the Election Assistance Commission by $8 million. That funding helps State and local officials administer fair, free, and secure elections. H.R. 4664 would also eliminate funding for election security grants.

In New Mexico, the secretary of State has used that money for security trainings and to enhance voter registration.

Don't we all want more people to vote? I know Democrats do.

Indiana, as an example, has used funds for election security and to upgrade voting equipment. This bill says to those election administrators: Good luck. We are not helping you anymore with these kinds of Federal funds.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all. This bill includes multiple riders that would allow private companies, nonprofits, and government contractors to keep their political spending secret. This type of secrecy leads the American public to lose faith in our representative government. Our constituents deserve transparency and to know that we work for them and not some special interest group.

Let's put this bill aside and instead take up one that our democracy deserves. We must always be working to that more perfect Union that our Constitution calls out, but it requires work and funding our elections at adequate levels.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, think about this rule. It sets out many amendments, and that is what we have been seeing when we have been coming to the floor. We come down and spend 10 minutes debating amendments that would reduce somebody's salary to $1, but then it loses overwhelmingly. Over and over, we keep coming to the floor and debating these amendments that are nonstarters from the beginning, but we are taking up precious floor time to do that.

Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment that isn't in this rule that passed out of committee on a 30-30 vote. It was highly bipartisan and didn't make it into the underlying bill. We asked last night if we couldn't bring an amendment like this that clearly has bipartisan support to the floor so that House Members would be able to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, that amendment was the bipartisan Aguilar-Ciscomani amendment, which would have allowed DACA recipients to work for the Federal Government.

Remember, Dreamers can lawfully work for State, local, and Tribal governments and in the private sector. Americans overwhelmingly support Dreamers who were brought to this country at a young age and grew up here. Up to 73 percent of voters in battleground States support Dreamers and their ability to work.

This is the kind of amendment that this rule should have made in order. I am disappointed that it didn't.

Mr. Speaker, as noted, after waiting weeks for the Republicans to stop their infighting, we have just 10 days to fund the government. However, my colleagues across the aisle have brought forward a bill that slashes crucial funding for agencies that protect hardworking Americans. Remember, this bill is 58 percent below what was appropriated last year.

What does it do? It makes it easier for scammers, fraudsters, and cheaters to exploit vulnerable citizens, including our seniors and children, and makes it easier for them to get away with it.

The proposed cuts to agencies like the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission would expose families to greater risk, all while protecting the interests of the wealthy and the well connected.

As if that wasn't enough, this bill reduces support for election officials by eliminating funding for election security grants.

In June, Congressional Republicans and Democrats and President Biden made a deal to keep the lights on, and we passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act into law. Mr. Speaker, 149 Republicans voted for that law.

Americans expect us to live up to our word. Americans expect us to live up to our promise. Americans expect us to live up to a law that came out of significant and intense negotiation as to what the funding level for government would be.

Unfortunately, Republicans broke that promise. They didn't even wait a week before they broke that promise.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and this

rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Republicans' Interior Appropriations bill attacks our environment and the opportunity for our prosperity in communities that have historically been left behind. This bill stands in stark contrast to Democratic values and priorities.

Last Congress, the Democratic House, Senate, and President recognized that for too long rural communities have lost jobs, people, and economic vibrancy.

As someone from and representing rural communities, changing this trajectory is my purpose and my passion in Congress. It is also my duty to bring rural voices to this Chamber, especially at times when Republicans' extreme bills will hurt our precious rural communities.

I know many of my colleagues in this room are also concerned about the rural communities where they live, yet rather than investing in places of promise, Republicans are using their appropriation bills to undermine that promise.

Indeed, their Interior-Environment bill cuts programs from the Inflation Reduction Act, our landmark law that we passed last year that marked the largest climate investment in U.S. history. They want to cut that Act by $9.4 billion. This includes slashing the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund by $7.8 billion.

That fund allows us to address the climate crisis while investing in jobs and capital improvements in rural America and other communities across the country that have been left behind. This program is an opportunity to remedy decades of underinvestment and to protect our beautiful lands, our beautiful environment, for generations.

I hear my Republican colleagues talk a lot about energy independence, yet they attack the programs that would actually help us achieve energy independence, true energy independence, not relying on foreign oil and Russia and others who would control the prices that we pay at home. We also know that pollution especially hurts the same communities that we fail to invest in, communities that are often places where Latinos and other people of color live.

This bill does not attack that pollution. Instead, it cuts $1.4 billion needed to address environmental health impacts. It tells those communities that they are not a priority. It tells them that we are not going to make things right for their health or for the environment. What is worse is that this bill cuts funding for the environmental agencies and council that work to protect our environment and public health, because health is directly tied to environmental pollution.

Last Congress, Democrats made historic investments in rural America's infrastructure, the most investments since the New Deal and the rural electrification program. In contrast, in the extreme Interior bill, Republicans would roll back all that progress. We can't face the climate crisis on a 1991 EPA budget, which is what this bill would do.

For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would strike the four provisions of the bill that cut programs for the Inflation Reduction Act, including the $7.8 billion cuts from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It would also cut $1.4 billion to the Environmental and Climate Justice Grants--I would make sure that those were not cut; all remaining funding from the Council on Environmental Quality for environmental and climate data collection and ``efficient and effective;'' and all remaining funding for the National Park System for deferred maintenance.

We know our parks need the care that they deserve. They are America's promise, and we are ignoring them and letting them deteriorate.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

Ms. Leger Fernandez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4821 to

the Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:

Strike sections 438, 439, 474, and 475.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chair, I, too, rise in opposition to amendment No. 86.

As noted, this amendment would roll back protections for Federal lands and Federal lands only within a 10-mile area around the World Heritage Site, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, in New Mexico, in my district, and only from new oil and gas drilling.

I stand here on the second day of Native American Heritage Month, and what we are doing on the second day of Native American Heritage Month is not recognizing, honoring, and protecting Native American heritage. Instead, what this amendment is doing is destroying Native American heritage. It is destroying the ability of Native Americans who hold these lands and these sites sacred to continue to practice their spiritual and religious beliefs.

Let's remember that what you are doing is undermining the ability of people to practice their historic spiritual and religious beliefs because not only is Chaco County a World Heritage Site, but it remains to this day a place of cultural and religious significance to the descendants of the Greater Chaco region.

We need to remember that Chaco Canyon is unique. Between A.D. 900 and 1150, Chaco was the heart of ceremonial, trade, and political activity for the Ancestral Puebloans. The sweeping ceremonial center you need to go visit is unlike anything constructed before or since.

However, for the Native Americans who come from this area, Chaco is not an old place. The sacred nature of Chaco continues unbroken in its importance to them today.

Given its history, you can imagine the importance of protecting this land and its people's ability to truly practice their faith.

It is true that there are different points of view within the Navajo Nation, but let's remember how this bill and how these protections that have been put into place came to be.

It was the former Navajo Nation president who first approached the Pueblos in an effort to protect these lands. The advocacy for these protections began in 2013 when the Eastern Navajo Agency Council passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new fracking activities within their agency.

Navajo Nation's advocacy continued, and in 2017, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the All Pueblo Council of Governors joined together in a statement opposing new fracking in the Greater Chaco region.

Protecting Chaco then became a collaborative process. It resulted eventually in the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act, which passed this body in the 116th Congress with the support of every Democrat and 17 Republicans.

The secretarial withdrawal this amendment attacks only happened after an extensive process of public engagement that included consultation with all the Tribal nations, including the Navajo Nation, the Pueblos, and those people who live in Arizona as well who are actually constituents of the sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, 100,000 public comments is not ignoring the people. That is listening to them. It was years of Tribal collaboration that made these protections possible.

Mr. Chair, let me correct the record. This does not affect in any way Navajo allottees' land. It does not affect in any way Navajo Tribal lands. It does not affect in any way rights-of-way or any infrastructure that is needed.

The existing oil and gas activity can continue, and new oil and gas activity can continue, but just not on Federal lands.

The existing royalties that are presently going to the Navajo allottees will continue in force, but we must admit that these withdrawals and protections are difficult. You must weigh the cultural and spiritual significance of an area that could be lost forever against the value of mineral development.

One molecule of gas is the same wherever it is extracted, but once you destroy a sacred site, you will never get it back.

I believe, even though I recognize the importance of the economic value of withdrawal, that we must err on the side of protection.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, just 3 days ago, Democrats voted to keep our government open. We told America how Republicans were slashing vital programs in their extreme appropriations bills.

We voted down the Republican plan to drastically cut programs that keep our babies, children, and their mothers from going hungry, cut public school funding, cut agricultural investments, and cut support for small businesses. That is what the Republicans wanted to do.

The American people heard our warnings, and their voices rang through Congress. Finally, we had a clean continuing resolution without those cuts on the House floor.

With support from the American people, Democrats led the way in keeping our government open. It is a continuation of our work from last Congress where Democrats passed laws to make investments in our future energy independence and in our vision for rural development that has been lacking for decades.

In Jeremiah 29:11, the Lord says: My plan is not for you to suffer, but for you to prosper, have hope and a future.

Democrats showed that we are ready and willing to make that prosperity plan a reality for Americans and especially for rural America.

For too long in rural America and in rural New Mexico, our families have been leaving the farms and ranches that give us our identity, our ``herencia y cultura,'' ``heritage and culture,'' and importantly, that give us the food we eat.

Last year, Democrats passed bill after bill to change this trend. We want to invest in rural America.

Through the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act, we can build the next generation of innovation in places like rural New Mexico. I am looking forward to an enchanted innovation hub in New Mexico.

Now that Republicans are in charge, they want to gut those bills, making rural families pay more and get less.

The Republican energy bill we are considering today wants to gut rural projects, like the SunZia line in Corona, New Mexico, which just installed the largest wind farm in the country. I call it the Route 66 of renewable energy. These wind farms are generating revenues for multiple local ranchers.

Let me tell you something. Many ranchers in the country don't make a profit. The USDA reported in 2020 that ranchers didn't generate enough profit to cover their own living expenses and debt obligations for 9 out of 10 years.

The Democrat prosperity plan changes that equation and allows ranchers to earn revenue from clean energy and from food production.

What is more, a wind farm in a rural county like Lincoln, New Mexico, will provide $1.3 billion in taxes in 30 years. Lincoln County has never seen such revenue before and can use it to invest in rural healthcare and behavioral health.

Rather than build on the transformational investments that Democrats made to support our rural communities, what are the Republicans doing? They are gutting our progress. They want to look backward.

Indeed, all the appropriations bills that the Republicans are putting forth hurt American competitiveness, they hurt rural areas, and they hurt families who need to save money.

Rather than incentivizing the programs that our children will need to save this planet and outcompete China, Republicans are taking us backward.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for a future where the Democratic prosperity plan can become a reality.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Madam Speaker, this extreme Republican bill reveals their mean-spirited values more than any words they utter. Those values are to kick 275,000 young, 4-year-old children out of Head Start.

Republicans hypocritically talk about fentanyl but then defund the law enforcement officers who seize this deadly drug. This bill deprives that brother, sister, daughter, a friend of yours that you might have who is battling mental health or addiction, of the funds they use.

Don't talk about fentanyl. Don't talk about addiction if you are not going to fund the law enforcement and the health resources we need to truly tackle that.

Madam Speaker, then they slash BAA funding by 30 percent, including slashing the Tribal law enforcement officers who are out there also interdicting and protecting us from criminal activity.

The CR really reveals who extreme Republicans are--``sin verguenza,'' ``without shame'' about hurting those

most vulnerable, cutting programs for our world communities by 30 percent.

I stand for rural America--this bill does not, and it puts down our ranchers and farmers.

If they don't get their way, what will they do? They will shut the government down.

Let's remind everybody, every time we have a government shutdown of any note, it is because Republicans did it under their leadership, and they hurt everybody in the process. And why? To protect the rich and the wealthy.

To protect the rich and the wealthy, the extreme Republicans will cut Social Security. They have said it. We have the words. They will do it. They will slash public school funding horribly--horribly--for those schools that most need it. They will criminalize abortion. Over and over again they have told us what they intend to do in their appropriation bills. They are going to make it hard for women to get access to the healthcare they need and they deserve everywhere.

I say that this bill is ``sin verguenza,'' ``without shame.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment which includes two of my amendments.

The USDA Office of Tribal Relations serves as the vital, single point of contact for our rural communities as they work through what is available for them. As we know, our Tribal communities are rural, and they must have access to the USDA Office of Tribal Relations.

My amendment No. 4 would restore funding levels for the USDA Office of Tribal Relations. Separately, my amendment No. 25 would increase funding to USDA Rural Development by $7 million to use these funds to improve its oversight of the Section 515 loan program for Rural Rental Housing.

Outrageously, in my district, three of these properties have experienced serious management and maintenance issues. The city of Espanola even condemned a property recently. This has left residents in unsafe conditions. USDA needs the necessary research to make sure its properties are livable.

Mr. Chair, while I am in favor of this en bloc, I must state again my opposition to the appropriations bill itself. I previously stood on this floor in opposition to the severe cuts to our rural communities. We must prioritize our rural communities, not cut them to 2007 levels.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, but I am opposed to the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Cole for the dignity and respect that he shows each of his colleagues on the Rules Committee. It is a great honor to be debating this rule with him this afternoon.

I must, however, rise in opposition to the rule because we only have six legislative days left to fund the government, and we are considering only one of the eleven bills that we must pass to fully fund our Federal Government.

I completely agree with our chair that our country is a beacon of hope and that we must, indeed, fund our military in the way that they need in order to continue to provide that beacon of hope and that strength that we must communicate both to our allies and those who would do us harm.

Indeed, America is facing significant security threats from a rampaging Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and a soon-to-be nuclear North Korea. Instead of uniting us, however, against those very real threats, extreme MAGA Republicans are putting Americans at war with each other with this divisive Defense appropriations bill.

Extreme MAGA Republicans are weakening our military readiness. In the Senate, Republicans are refusing to allow votes on flag officers, so we don't have the generals, admirals, and top military officers we need to lead our troops. Here in the House, instead of passing what should be and has historically been a bipartisan Defense appropriations bill, extreme Republicans are inserting the kitchen sink of culture war issues that we have seen too often.

Indeed, when we talk about women, this bill is another step in their march toward a national abortion ban. If this bill is enacted, a servicewoman in a State with a total abortion ban that doesn't have exceptions for rape would not be able to take leave and get help to travel to a place like New Mexico where a woman's right to receive the full access to reproductive healthcare is honored. Fourteen States have a total ban on abortion. In each of those 14 States, we will find servicewomen who are honorably serving our Nation.

In addition, this bill sets up minorities and our servicemembers who are gay, lesbian, and all individuals of the LGBTQ community to harassment.

At a moment when we know that some of our bases are under threat from climate change, this bill cuts $714 million from climate resiliency programs. I have been to our bases in the Pacific islands, and I recognize that we must have climate resilience if we don't want our bases to be under water. By giving up on preparing for climate resiliency, we are giving up a strategic military advantage that we should take advantage of.

Instead of focusing on how we can improve recruitment from our diverse communities in America when we are failing to meet our recruitment goals, this appropriation prohibits funding for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

We know that people of color answer the call to service at disproportionately higher rates, and those numbers are not reflected in military leadership. This bill tells my Latino and Native American communities they are not valued.

Congressman Neguse asked the Defense Subcommittee chair why he would cut funding for the chief diversity officer, a position that he had voted to create. The chair responded that it was the best way to get attention.

That is how we legislate now, to get attention?

Last week, in the Rules Committee, we tried to remedy some of these awful and unnecessary riders. Republicans voted our amendments down.

All of these divisive riders harm our military readiness and hurt our servicemembers, servicemembers who put their lives on the line to protect us. It is never enough to just thank our servicemembers for their service. We need

to provide them with the benefits, quality of life, and respect that all of them deserve.

These extreme provisions are a trend this year, however. Perhaps that is the reason we have passed only one appropriations bill under Republican leadership in the House this year.

This Defense appropriations bill is the only one that we appear to be considering today. We are not considering a short-term funding package to ensure our government doesn't shut down. We are not considering something to cover all the appropriations bills.

Today, we are considering the Defense appropriations bill, and it should be focused solely on national security. It should be about making sure our Nation has the best and brightest force. It should be about serving all the individuals who protect us.

We should be unified in making sure our servicemembers have the resources they need and the respect they deserve. Instead, this bill attacks access to reproductive healthcare for our servicewomen and their families. It devalues the minorities, the Latinos, Black Americans, Native Americans, who serve and are looking for us to help them address the racism that still exists, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also thinking about last week's committee hearing and this discussion about the history of where we were with regard to the appropriations process. I think there is a very different mood this year than we had in the last cycle, and that is the fact that Democrats have never called to shut it down. That is exactly what we are hearing from Republicans on the other side of the aisle.

We never took that position. We were always trying to work it out, not shut it down. Even though we might not have passed all the bills by September 30, we were working across the aisle with our colleagues, working with the Senate on the other side, so we never had a shutdown. What we had was constant movement toward an agreement.

Indeed, the passed appropriations bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, both in the Senate and the House. We had hundreds of Republicans voting with the Democrats to pass the last appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my good friend, who I hold in high regard.

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

As we just noted, the chair of the committee has once again showed both his dignity and respect to his colleagues.

I do want to point out that you are right, I did forget about that 72-hour shutdown because it was very brief, and I agree with you, it is a stupid thing to do. No, I am sorry, I think you said it is a dumb thing to do, and it is because it causes so much pain for the people back home. They expect us to do our job, and the primary thing we are supposed to do is fund our government because it is not just the really hardworking employees who keep our airplanes flying in the air, who make sure that our food is inspected so we don't get sick, it is also the teachers in our schools who receive Title I funding in New Mexico.

So many of my schools receive Title I funding. Those are the schools that have the fewest resources, so the Federal Government helps them out to make sure all our children, wherever they live, can get a good education. Those are the things that will be lost if we shut down the Federal Government.

I point out that in contrast to the 72 hours, in 1995 under Republican leadership, 21 days the government was shut down; in 2013 the government was shut down for 16 days; and then in 2018 they shut it down for 35 days. This is a refrain we hear over and over again. It happens under House Republican leadership so often as we just saw.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas), a wonderful Member of our freshman class this year.

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

The concern that we have with the bill with regards to a woman's right to be able to determine for herself in conversation with her own faith, her own family, and her own doctors what kind of reproductive healthcare she wants access to is the fact that this bill would prevent servicewomen and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to obtain an abortion or related services if those services are not provided where she is assigned.

Remember, servicewomen don't get to choose where they live and where they work. There have already been multiple legal opinions that using paid leave and traveling and getting assistance to get to a State where you can get medical care does not violate the Hyde amendment.

Indeed, the Hyde amendment would allow you to get that kind of care if you were raped. Well, guess what? In 14 States if you were raped, you cannot get that care. That would violate the Hyde amendment in a sense when you cannot get access to it.

Last week in the Rules Committee, Representative McCollum told the story of a woman in Texas who was told by her doctor that she would not perform a surgical procedure to remove a dead fetus because of the State's abortion ban. That servicewoman did not have the options she was entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the 2023 New York Times article: ``As Abortion Laws Drive Obstetricians From Red States, Maternity Care Suffers.''

Because what has changed is that now we have 14 States that have total bans on abortion, so we must do more to honor our commitment to our servicewomen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our ranking member on the Rules Committee.

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

I think what Americans know is that for too long, Republicans have been protecting the rich and the corporations who do not pay their taxes. When we start talking about spending, we need to talk about what we are spending that money for.

Democrats are investing in rural America. They are investing in our children. They are investing in our infrastructure. What are Republicans doing? Yes, they are adding to that deficit. Republicans put $2 trillion on that credit card in tax cuts for the rich.

The leader they worship, Donald Trump, put $7.5 trillion onto that deficit. The very first bill they brought to the floor of this Congress, what did it add? $114 billion to that cut.

That is what we need to talk about, not just how they want to cut investments and important things like heating for our families who need it, our seniors, and our veterans. What are they doing? They are trying to make sure that they don't have to tax the rich and wealthy corporations. Many, as we heard last night, don't pay anything in taxes.

Yes, we do want to talk about Social Security. I am so glad the chair brought this up because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans often swear that they are not going to cut Social Security and Medicare. Last night, when we met on the continuing resolution, there is an 8 percent cut across the board for everything but defense and veterans. Their continuing resolution has a 66 percent cut to heating assistance. They have said border security is their top priority, but the very CR we are scheduled to consider cuts funding for DHS by over 8 percent.

While they claim they won't cut Social Security and Medicare, their own continuing resolution, the language in the bill itself, demonstrates that nothing is sacred to them.

I am going to offer my friends, my dear friends, a chance to show the American people that they are serious about preserving Social Security and Medicare.

I urge you all to join us in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which plainly states that the people's House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that so many of my constituents, so many of your constituents, rely on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin) to discuss our proposal.

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

I think what we need to do is look at this appropriations bill, look at where we are in our discussions about funding the government and recognize that nothing exists in a vacuum.

Last night, as we were talking about the Committee on Appropriations, we were talking about the extreme cuts that are being made, and we know that our military, when they sort of show up at our bases, they are not showing up at a base that is not connected to the rest of the places they live in.

In Clovis, New Mexico, where we have Cannon Air Force Base, and in Alamogordo, where we have an Air Force base, those communities are connected, and we need to recognize that the other bills that they are looking at are going to cut funding in a way that is going to hurt our readiness.

The Agriculture appropriations bill is a good opportunity to talk about this. The bill that they have brought forward would fund world development programs, right? Nope. That is going to get cut. It would also cut nutrition to women, infants, and children. It would cut the funding we need for our ranchers and farmers.

Indeed, the cuts that they are proposing would be $8 billion in cuts, in the Agriculture appropriations bill. This would bring the funding level for the Agriculture appropriations bill to a level not seen since 2007.

The bill would cut broadband programs by 23 percent. It would hurt something that is incredibly important to my district, which are rural electric co-ops that serve 268,403 residents. Well, those rural electric co-ops, they serve people throughout our districts, and they serve our military bases. We must fight these kinds of threats.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we cannot talk about readiness; we cannot talk about what we need to do in this country to support our military if we don't talk about our servicemembers and what we must do to protect them and to respect them, because they are protecting us.

So when we are talking about our servicewomen, we must remember the number of servicewomen who are serving. It is about 20 percent right now, and the number of women who are serving in those 14 States which have a total ban on abortion is significant. It is 80,000 women--80,000 women, who, if something happens to them like what Representative McCollum discussed, they could die of sepsis.

For those of us who have given birth, for those of us who have had to make really difficult decisions about our health and how we are going to deal with the complications of pregnancy, we feel it viscerally, because we know that it is such a wonderful thing to give birth, but it is such a dangerous thing to be pregnant.

And what they would do to our servicewomen is deny them the ability to

go to a State like New Mexico when they want reproductive healthcare services.

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

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