Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 723.
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act.
The first section of House Resolution 723 states that all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be considered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, decades ago, Republicans came up with a rule that basically says that we cannot impose mandates on States and local governments that will cost them significant amounts of money. That rule is routinely waived, including in this rule.
Do you know what will cost States and local governments significant amounts of money? A government shutdown.
The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that the 5-week partial government shutdown in 2018-2019 reduced economic output by $11 billion in the following two quarters, including $3 billion that the U.S. economy never regained. Moody's Analytics estimated that the 2013 full government shutdown reduced GDP growth by $20 billion. At the same time of the 2013 shutdown, consumer confidence fell, threatening the economic recovery following the Great Recession.
A shutdown this fall would jeopardize the improvements of consumer confidence as inflation has returned to more normal levels. A bipartisan congressional report found that the last three government shutdowns led to the equivalent of 56,940 years in lost productivity from Federal workers being furloughed. These lost work hours deprive the American people of important public services, delayed furloughed Federal employees from receiving backpay, and cost the government at least $338 million in additional processing costs and late fees.
While Federal employees are guaranteed backpay during shutdowns, a prolonged shutdown could mean multiple missed paychecks and strained household budgets for these workers.
In 2013 and again in 2018, roughly 850,000 out of 2.1 million nonpostal Federal employees were furloughed. Additionally, at the beginning of the 2018-2019 partial shutdown, about 380,000 Federal employees were furloughed and another 420,000 reported to work but went unpaid.
Over 80 percent of Federal workers live and work outside of the D.C. area, meaning that local economies across the country would be harmed by Federal worker furloughs as families delay purchases or are forced to miss regular bill payments.
Let's consider more impacts of the Republican shutdown and how it will cost State and local governments. It would force servicemembers and law enforcement officers to work without pay. Under a Republican shutdown, all Active-Duty military personnel and many law enforcement officers would remain at work but receive no pay until appropriated funds are available.
It would endanger disaster response. A Republican shutdown would create an increased risk that FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is depleted and would complicate new emergency response efforts if additional catastrophic disasters occur. Funding for long-term recovery projects would also remain halted, worsening ongoing delays as FEMA awaits new appropriations.
It would undermine research on cancer and other diseases. A Republican shutdown would stall critical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's disease because the National Institutes of Health would be forced to delay new clinical trials. New patients, many of whom are desperately waiting for a chance for a new treatment through a clinical trial, would be turned away.
It would eliminate Head Start slots for kids. Under a Republican shutdown, 10,000 children across the country would immediately lose access to Head Start as the Department of Health and Human Services wouldn't be able to award Head Start grants during a shutdown, with the impacts only growing worse over time.
It would risk significant delays for travelers. Air traffic controllers and TSA officers would have to work without pay, potentially leading to significant delays and longer wait times for travelers at airports across the country like there were during the previous shutdown.
It would undermine public health and environmental protections. Most EPA-led inspections at hazardous waste sites, as well as drinking water and chemical facilities, would stop. EPA would halt oversight and review of permits and plans to ensure safe water and clean air in communities. Additionally, efforts to address dangerous contaminants that are linked to severe health effects would be stopped. This would be a disaster.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman said the Democrats shut down the economy during the pandemic. I should remind him that Donald John Trump was the President of the United States and the Republicans controlled the House.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Madam Speaker, let me announce breaking news.
I don't want to see the government shut down.
Democrats don't want to see the government shut down.
The American people don't want to see the government shut down.
I am standing with the American people and cities and hamlets and villages and counties and States.
What has failed to be enunciated, I say to my friend on the other side, is that we had a deal. We should have been finished with this.
The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States already agreed in the spring on what the numbers would be, what we were going to do for the government to keep operating. It has already been done.
We are here now because of the upheaval of MAGA Republicans talking about undermining a deal that was made on behalf of the good people of this Nation. We are facing an uphill battle.
We just came out of the Budget Committee where they are fighting to eliminate $400 million in Medicare cuts and $2 trillion in cuts to mandatory health spending.
The reason why we are on the floor now is because we believe in the people back home. They can't afford another unfunded mandate. Cities are now carrying over their fund balances with Federal dollars that Democrats were able to give to keep them alive. If we have these unfunded mandates, childcare goes out the window; Active-Duty military have problems with getting paid, our veterans don't get their services; Social Security payments may be up in the air; the burden of having to pay money for unfunded mandates; the hanger-on amendments that are being put into these bills are just tragic.
Law enforcement may be impacted negatively. Those who are in need of getting violent criminals off the street may be put in jeopardy. People who are working-class Americans going to community colleges are in jeopardy of getting their resources.
Madam Speaker, let me just say this: No more unfunded mandates. Let's do the deal that we have and save the American people.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on these four appropriation bills before us today: H.R. 4365-- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4367--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024; H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024; and H.R. 4368--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.
I oppose the Rule and the underlying legislation as it pertains to H.R. 4365, for the following reasons:
The bill, which should be earnestly attempting to best support the Department of Defense, is being used by Republicans to sneak partisan and damaging policies under our noses.
The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body and is strongly opposed by the ranking members who sit on the very committee this bill originated from.
In order to further promote a culture war, the members who oversaw this bill are going to put many Americans at risk.
First, they are targeting the many brave servicewomen currently employed by the Department of Defense by directly going against the Secretary of Defense's promises for them to have access to reproductive healthcare regardless of their station.
Women currently make up 1 in 5 members of our military.
Denying them their previously promised ability to check their reproductive health is not only dangerous, but also grossly irresponsible. The loss of these rights also increases the risk for low retention amongst female servicemembers who need these benefits this bill would strip away.
Second, the bill targets the LGBTQ+ community, who are increasingly victimized by Republican agendas around the country.
Regardless of your beliefs, it is important to treat everyone with respect and equality, which this bill does not do.
This bill would prohibit hormone therapy or surgical treatment for gender affirming care, directly affecting those who experience gender dysphoria. Individuals who feel they do not belong in their own body is a serious issue and has led to 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary young people attempting suicide in the past year.
Our priority as the legislative body of this country is to protect the wellbeing of ALL citizens, regardless of personal beliefs and ideologies.
The language in this legislation would further embolden those who wish to commit harm and violence against a minority group already facing so much hardship, both socially and legally.
This is unacceptable.
The lives and wellbeing of those who live across the country should not be put at risk simply to push a regressive agenda that does not promote the diversity of our nation but rather seeks to suppress it.
This brings me to my third point, which is the underhanded way Republicans sought to eliminate ``Critical Race Theory?'' or ``CRT''.
Let me be clear: Republicans have a warped understanding of what this term means, and they are using it as a means to remove any diversity in education.
Critical Race Theory is a collegiate field of study that examines the complex ways in which race fits into the structures of our society; it is not an attack on white people for their history, just as it does not victimize Black people based on ours.
Based on an incorrect definition, Republican leaders at all levels of government have worked to eliminate all diverse viewpoints providing a complete framework of the history of this country, and instead wash over the negative to present a false narrative.
At the same time, legislation aimed at elementary schools against a Critical Race Theory--which again, is only offered at the collegiate level--deprives diverse students of hearing their voice reflected accurately in the history of this multicultural nation.
Another issue with this Defense Appropriations bill is the cut of $714 million to adapt military equipment to be more climate friendly.
Climate change is a crisis that requires global attention and efforts.
The refusal to even allow for updating our military alternative source of energy is regressive and promoted under a false message.
It was not Biden who indicated that he wanted an ``all electric'' fleet of tanks as is commonly stated, but rather the United States Army.
This part of the bill stands directly in the way of innovation as well as keeping us from doing our part in the world to strive towards a net zero future.
In 2020 alone, the United States military was responsible for 51 million tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere; more than most countries.
But now, when the U.S. Army decides for themselves that they want to scale back on their emissions, certain members in Congress want to limit their choice.
One bright spot of this bill--though it is short-lived--is the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4365 that was made in order by the committee.
The Jackson Lee amendment H.R. 4365 seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research.
This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military, who are up to 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.
I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.
This amendment would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.
Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I am very proud of the work that I and Congress has done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, but there are still improvements to be made.
The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.
While this amendment is important, the negatives of this defense appropriations bill vastly outweigh the positives.
As with all the additional appropriation bills on the floor today, the Administration likewise strongly opposes the passage of this bill for a myriad of reasons--including the following:
Border Management Funding: It is disappointing this bill does not include funding for a new Southwest Border Contingency Fund. This fund would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the Southwest border and fulfill its critical and complementary missions of securing the border, performing efficient and effective screening and processing, and meeting the Nation's humanitarian obligations.
Shelter and Services Program: It also shameful that this bill seeks to eliminate the Shelter and Services Program, a priority grant program for DHS that provides temporary food, shelter, and other services to state and local entities and non-governmental organizations that provide support to migrants who are released from DHS custody. This grant program is a key mechanism for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to relieve overcrowding in short-term holding facilities.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Funding: This bill further fails to provide appropriations for USCIS application processing and grant programs. Without this funding, USCIS would be unable to improve its operations and the application processing backlog would continue to grow in FY 2024.
Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVFP) Grants: It is absolutely abhorrent that this bill eliminates the TVTP grant program. TVTP provides funding to nonprofits and to State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to develop multidisciplinary targeted violence and terrorism prevention capabilities in local communities, to pilot innovative prevention approaches, and to identify prevention best practices that can be replicated in communities across the Nation.
Immigration Enforcement Prohibitions and Requirements: I also stand with the Administration in strongly opposing section 220 of the bill, which would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using appropriated funds to carry out the Administration's immigration enforcement priorities, as well as the requirement in the bill for ICE to fill 41,500 detention beds and enroll all non-detained migrants in Alternatives to Detention. These requirements are unrealistic, pose implementation challenges, and would dilute the Department's focus on protecting America from security threats.
Restrictions on Alternatives to Detention (ATD): This bill wrongfully eliminates funding for the Young Adult Case Management Program, as well as for Operation Horizon, and grant funds for a case management pilot program. These restrictions would simultaneously strain limited resources and remove valuable flexibilities in managing low-risk populations.
Limiting Interior Transportation: Prohibiting the transport of noncitizens to interior locations risks overcrowding at border processing sites and other DHS facilities, threatening to exacerbate life and safety concerns of those in custody.
Restrictions on Access to Healthcare: Section 222 of the bill is also particularly harmful, which would make it more difficult to access lawful reproductive healthcare. I stand in strong opposition to this section, which targets LGBTQI+ individuals who are in ICE detention.
Prohibiting the Implementation of the Asylum Processing Rule: This bill further prohibits the use of funds to implement the Administration's Asylum Processing Rule--which serves as a key part of the Administration's efforts to streamline the immigration system, allowing USCIS Asylum Officers to hear and decide certain asylum claims in the first instance.
Prohibiting the Implementation of the Legal Pathways Rule: I further oppose the bill's prohibition on using funds to implement the Administration's Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule. The Rule encourages migrants to use lawful, safe, and orderly processes for entering the United States; imposes conditions on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so or fail to seek protection in a country through which they transit; and supports the swift return of migrants who do not have valid protection claims. The bill would undermine DHS's continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.
Restricting the Use of the CBP One Application: I also strongly oppose the bill's restrictions on using the CBP One application. A key part of the Administration's efforts to foster fair and orderly conditions at the border, the CBP One application allows border officials to screen migrants seeking asylum along the Southwest border, and issue them a document to appear in court upon their arrival.
Border Wall: Lastly, I oppose the homeland security appropration bill for its rescession and reappropriation of $2.1 billion in border wall funding. Building a border wall is not a serious policy solution nor is it a responsible use of Federal funds.
While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 in order, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.
The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.
I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.
Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.
For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.
The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetic fistula, complications during childbirth and death.
Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.
According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16/No. 43 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.
Lastly, as it pertains to the bill to determine appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for the 2024 fiscal year, I strongly oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
While I am again grateful the Rules committee made in order my Jackson Lee Amendment, listed as No. 18 in the Harris (MD)--En Bloc, this bill seeks to return America's agriculture back to 2006 funding levels--with an allocation of $17.1 billion, nearly $8 billion below last year's enacted bill.
The Jackson Lee Amendment increases funding that provides grant research financial support for ``1890s Land Grant Universities,'' which are 28 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This amendment also proposes decreasing funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities' (APLU) Council of 1890s includes all Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that are land-grant universities.
Under the Morrill Act of 1890, at least 19 universities have been designated with land-grant status. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities--Excellence in Research HBCU-EiR program was established in response to direction provided in the Senate Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Report (Senate Report 115-139). That initiative was built on prior and continuing efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to strengthen research capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
The Jackson Lee Amendment would provide sufficient funding and guidance to enable the NSF to be successful with the HBCU Excellence in Research program.
This amendment would further provide opportunities for both public and private HBCUs, particularly for those who have not been successful in competing with larger NSF Research & Related Activities.
Increasing Funding for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that provides grant research would help to stimulate sustainable improvement in research and development capacities of HBCUs.
By increasing funding for relevant agencies that provide appropriate financial support for these historically underserved institutions, we can ensure that federal funds are redirected toward more critical funding needs of the American people.
However, the proposed underlying bill as is would mean a pull back on investment, slashing the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers.
H.R. 4368 rescinds $500 million from the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP), which helps farmers facing high input costs.
Many provisions in this bill seek to limit access to viable programs and put many out of reach of energy efficient projects that help American farmers to lower their energy bills and live decent lives.
For everyday rural Americans, the implementation of this bill would have a substantially negative impact on their daily livelihood. These communities rely on crucial infrastructure, from water and wastewater systems to high-speed internet.
However, these infrastructure projects require huge upfront costs that smaller tax bases of rural communities cannot bear alone.
H.R. 4368 would cut federal grants to community facilities by a whopping 90 percent, obstructing the progress in bringing affordable health care to underserved and rural communities, and it will cut rural water and waste disposal loans by 30 percent and rural waste disposal grants by 36 percent.
All these senseless cuts to funding amount to 325 crucial projects for rural water and wastewater systems that simply will not have the funding to be implemented.
This bill also seeks to eliminate funding for the Distressed Communities program, which means hundreds of small local governments will not be able to renovate their systems to meet EPA standards for getting arsenic and lead out of their drinking water systems.
The cumulative and direct impact of these policies on the American people will be devastating. Thousands of American families could lose access to reliable sources of water, not knowing if they could turn on the spigot and get clean, safe water to drink or complete a myriad of other essential daily tasks.
H.R. 4368 further limits funding for Rural Electric Cooperatives that help close the gaps in our power grid across the country. Over 900 rural electric cooperatives serve 42 million people across 48 states-- including 92 percent of persistent poverty counties--those who can least afford to build and maintain this crucial infrastructure. These Rural Electric Cooperatives play vital roles in ensuring that rural communities have access to affordable energy.
Additionally, H.R. 438 will contribute to food insecurity in our country. The bill calls for new work requirements for SNAP recipients, which exacerbates the cycle of poverty--particularly in rural communities.
We cannot deny the fact that SNAP recipients who are able to work, do work. However, even with a full-time job, many Americans, especially those in our rural communities, struggle to earn enough to escape poverty.
This is not an issue of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, but of limited job opportunities, cut-back work hours, and other extenuating factors.
America cannot thrive if Americans are hungry, and this bill will take food out of the mouths of over 6 million Americans who will lose SNAP benefits due to the increased work requirements.
If this bill passes, it will rescind $500 million dollars in WIC funding, underfunding the account for 2024 directly affecting nearly 5 million hungry women and children.
H.R. 4368 will reduce levels for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by $1.2 billion--hurting both families and farmers.
As a result, 4.6 million of our people would lose out on produce and our farmers would lose an expected $1.2 million dollars in revenue.
Not only that, the nearly 30 percent cut to single family direct housing loans--from $1.25 billion in FY 2023 to $900 million in FY 2024--will make it harder for rural Americans to afford to buy a house.
This means that over 2800 rural families will not be able to get financing to put a roof over their heads; our farmers, producers, and rural communities deserve a more reliable partner in our Congress.
While it is without question that the USDA has a long and storied history of discrimination, Congress, however, has always been a steadfast partner and cornerstone of this country's agricultural industry. This appropriations bill, H.R. 4368, however, seeks to undermine enduring efforts of this Congress to ensure equal opportunity and access for every American.
These appropriations should be a reliable means by which we help Americans from all walks of life; unfortunately, the Republican proposed bill before us today does not meet the moment.
Too much is at stake--from the food we eat, to the medicine and medical devices on which we rely, and the fiber and materials that help clothe and build our country, and our national security. Americans deserve better.
America cannot permit a child, a family, or a small business that has their potential to be limited, and opportunities curtailed simply because they are located in a Rural Free Delivery (RFD) zip code.
This appropriations bill presented to us today takes food out of the mouths of hungry people, creates barriers for women who need access to medication, raises energy costs for rural Americans, and makes it harder for small farmers and poultry producers to meet their basic needs.
We can do better. We are better than this. The American people deserve better.
I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against this cruel proposal.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation for all four appropriation bills.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I should remind him that the Republicans set an amendment deadline on appropriations bills after the shutdown deadline, so don't tell me you are interested somehow in avoiding a shutdown.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, to speak more about that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, I have never seen such incompetence ever in this Chamber.
They say that they are against dilatory tactics. Yet they have only passed one appropriations bill. Now they are going to try to rush 11 more in record time across the finish line. This should have happened in June and July.
By the way, all these bills are so extreme that they are dead on arrival. They are going nowhere.
Their Homeland Security appropriations bill, even if we pass it, they are going to hold it at the desk until the Senate passes their ridiculous border bill, H.R. 2, which they know is going nowhere. They are not even sending that over to the Senate.
They are wasting all this time for what, I don't know, but in the meantime, right now we should be considering a continuing resolution so this government doesn't shut down.
I never thought I would ever be on the floor saying anything nice about the Senate, but over there Democrats and Republicans are actually talking to each other. They actually came to an agreement on a continuing resolution, and hopefully they will act on it and they will send it over here so we can end this nonsense.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, nays 198, not voting 26, as follows: [Roll No. 404] YEAS--209 Aderholt Alford Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Balderson Banks Barr Bean (FL) Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Chavez-DeRemer Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crawford Curtis D'Esposito Davidson De La Cruz Diaz-Balart Donalds Duarte Duncan Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Ezell Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fry Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia, Mike Gimenez Gonzales, Tony Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Harris Harshbarger Hern Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Issa Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kean (NJ) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kiggans (VA) Kiley Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaLota Lamborn Langworthy Latta LaTurner Lawler Lee (FL) Lesko Letlow Loudermilk Luetkemeyer Luttrell Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McHenry Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Molinaro Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Obernolte Ogles Owens Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Santos Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Valadao Van Duyne Van Orden Wagner Walberg Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (NY) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--198 Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bowman Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Caraveo Carbajal Cardenas Carter (LA) Cartwright Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Cohen Connolly Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Frost Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Robert Golden (ME) Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Ivey Jackson (IL) Jackson (NC) Jackson Lee Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Krishnamoorthi Kuster Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Lieu Magaziner Manning Matsui McBath McClellan McGarvey McGovern Meeks Menendez Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Nickel Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Quigley Ramirez Raskin Ross Ruiz Ruppersberger Ryan Salinas Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Slotkin Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Spanberger Stanton Stevens Strickland Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Wexton Wild Williams (GA) NOT VOTING--26 Allen Baird Bera Burlison Bush Carson Carter (TX) Clyburn Crenshaw Crow Dean (PA) DesJarlais Goldman (NY) Huffman LaMalfa Lofgren Lucas Luna Lynch McCollum Nunn (IA) Peltola Rogers (AL) Stansbury Van Drew Wilson (FL)
Ms. CHU and Mr. COHEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HUDSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, forgive me, but what the hell is going on around here? We just heard the gentleman from Texas scream talking points that sound like they were written in Mar-a-Lago.
This is crazy. I can't believe I have to say this, but the Federal Government of the United States is shutting down on Saturday because a handful of MAGA Republicans didn't get everything they wanted. I have to tell you, that is a bad thing. It is a bad thing for our country.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are acting like a shutdown is no big deal. Stop it. Stop it. This is not a mock Congress. This isn't the Model U.N.
We are talking about real people's lives here. Shutdowns cost taxpayer money. Shutdowns hurt the economy. Shutdowns mean people don't get paid. Shutdowns are bad. Yet, Republicans are on the verge of shutting down the government.
We have a Democratic President. We have a Democratic Senate. All we need is this Republican House of Representatives to get their act together, but they can't.
Their bumbling, incompetent leadership can't even do the basic job of standing up to their extreme Members so we can keep the lights on.
It might have made sense for them to pass these appropriation bills and send them to the Senate to iron out our differences if it were still June or July. It is September.
They have spent months fighting with themselves, and now we are 4 days from our deadline. Have they ever looked at a calendar? Have they ever heard of the concept of scheduling? Have they ever heard of clock management?
You don't start a months-long process 4 days before the deadline, but here we are, considering the most extreme, partisan, unhinged MAGA messaging bills this majority could come up with.
My colleague from Texas talks about the border, the border, the border. It is an important issue, but these bills cut funding for the border. He cares so much about securing the border that he is willing to--wait for it--defund the border.
Madam Speaker, they are not even sending their Homeland Security appropriations bill to the Senate. What brilliant legislative mind came up with this bright idea?
Let me explain what this rule does. The House is refusing to send this bill to the Senate until the Republicans' extreme immigration bill is signed into law, which is never going to happen.
What will happen because of all their nonsense is that the people who actually work to secure the border will not get paid. This is nuts.
These bills are chock full of MAGA culture wars. Their agriculture bill takes money away from food assistance for pregnant mothers and newborns. I could spend all day talking about how awful these bills are.
The bottom line is we have 4 days, and I am asking my Republican colleagues: Do not shut this government down because you are all fighting with yourselves. Do your job and keep the government open. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina says we keep on talking about government shutdown, government shutdown. The reason we do is because we listened to you.
On September 19 in the PBS Hour interview, you were asked: How likely is a shutdown right now?
Your response was: It is 100 percent.
We have heard that from other Members.
The gentleman keeps on talking about the border. We believe the border is a serious issue. The border is not open. Maybe people think it is open because you guys keep on saying it is open. You are signaling to people that it is open. It is not open, and we don't believe it should be open. We don't view this issue as a political talking point. We want to get results.
My friends on the other side of the aisle voted against a fiscal year 2023 government funding package that President Biden signed into law that provided Border Patrol with $7.153 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before.
The funding package provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at every point of entry, and $230 million for technology, like the autonomous surveillance towers. Does any of that sound like open borders?
Here is the kicker. House Republicans voted ``no.''
By the way, Mr. Norman, this bill does nothing about Mr. Mayorkas' salary, but it does cut salaries for people who are working at the border, Border Patrol agents.
The gentleman from Texas said that he wants the Senate to get their act together.
Senator Patty Murray, who just announced that Democrats and Republicans have come to a bipartisan agreement on a continuing resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, they are talking to each other. You can't even get an agreement amongst Republicans--how pathetic.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, breaking news, news flash, the Senate just voted on cloture on the motion to proceed on the CR, 77-19. They are working in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to get this thing done so we don't shut the government down.
What are my Republican friends doing?
They are still fighting amongst themselves. We don't even have a draft of anything that they are proposing in terms of avoiding a shutdown.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania complaining about the mismanagement of this House of Representatives. It is reinforcing our message. He can complain all he wants, but he can't blame Speaker Pelosi, Joe Biden, or anybody but his own leadership. I hate to tell him, but his party is in charge.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, there is a pattern here that I have seen develop over the years. When Republicans are in charge, the debt doesn't matter. When Democrats are in charge, all of a sudden, the debt is the central issue. It is funny, when Donald Trump, who I don't know how many indictments he has against him at this particular point, how many dozens of years in jail he faces if he is convicted, but when he was President, he added $8 trillion to the debt, and there was silence from the other side of the aisle. That was only in 4 years, by the way. It is a little bit ironic to hear some of this back and forth here.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I just got off the telephone with one of my chief law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas, in Harris County, who just simply begged us not to shut down the government.
As everyone knows, I was on the floor just an hour or so ago saying, breaking news, I am against a government shutdown. We will fight against the government shutdown. My good friend on the other side of the aisle is complaining that the Senate did their work with such an amazing, overwhelming majority.
Let me tell you how we can solve that before I get into discussion of why we are standing here today. Put the Senate bill on the floor. That is the rules that are the operational underpinnings of the House and Senate. They send it over, and we put it on the floor. If you don't like it, you change it and send it back. That way, you are engaged in stopping the shutdown.
However, if we sit here tonight and do nothing, the government shutdown, in particular, is going to impact the gross domestic product from 2 to 6 percentage points or $2- to $6 billion in lost output. That is people without jobs, resulting in the creation of 120,000 fewer private-sector jobs.
In addition, things like Medicare and Medicaid are going to be in jeopardy. Our economic security will be in jeopardy. Education and training will be in jeopardy, infrastructure dollars; and, particularly, my seniors and others in need of Social Security checks are just going to be out in the cold.
Combining, however, the bills that my friends want us to move on, they attack women's reproductive rights, they attack the LGBTQ+ community, who are continuously victimized for medical care that they need. They talk about Homeland Security, and it is completely untenable that they exclude funding for a new southwest border contingency fund that would enable DHS to respond more effectively to changing conditions on the southwest border. They cut out shelter and services programs. It is shameful to eliminate those programs that provide temporary food and shelter.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in addition--can you believe it?-- they slash or eliminate the number of loans awarded to financially distressed farmers under the agriculture bill; and then targeting violence and terrorism prevention grants, they take that out.
What are we talking about here? Let's deal with the CR from the Senate. You don't like it, add something to it, and send it back. Today is September 26. We will be able to say to the American people, we are adults, and we can stop the shutdown.
Let's go to work. These bills have to go back to the table again. I want to make sure we don't have a shutdown, and we can do it with the Senate CR right now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Business as usual for my Republican friends is more tax cuts for corporations and millionaires and billionaires, slashing programs that help the most vulnerable in our country, and subsidies to Big Oil companies and more and more money to big defense contractors.
Let me just explain to some of my colleagues, especially the moderate Republicans, if there are any of them left:
The ag appropriations bill, before the manager's amendment, which, by the way, imposed even deeper cuts in some of these programs, slashes WIC by $800 million. It reduces the value for WIC fruit and vegetable vouchers by $1.2 billion, hurting both families and farmers.
It guts the Rural Energy for America Program by $500 million.
It guts rural electric investments in clean energy and energy efficiency from the Inflation Reduction Act by $1 billion.
It eliminates a lifeline that has already helped more than 20,000 distressed farmers who have received assistance from the Inflation Reduction Act.
It blocks FDA from acting on important tobacco issues, banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and limiting the nicotine in cigarettes.
It blocks the Biden executive orders on diversity, equality, inclusion, and accessibility.
It reverses the 2023 FDA decision to allow mifepristone to be dispensed in certified pharmacies with a prescription instead of only hospitals, clinics, and medical offices.
This bill, made worse by a manager's amendment, guts food programs, nutrition programs to our kids, to pregnant mothers and newborns.
What are they thinking? What sense does that make? How does anybody on that side of the aisle vote for a bill that does that? To my moderate friends, if they are still around, how do they do that? This is unacceptable. By the way, read the fine print in these appropriations bills, look at the programs they cut.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which is for a bad bill that takes food out of the mouths of children, hurts our farmers, guts climate change actions, and is another step toward the Republicans' dark and extreme goal to ban abortion nationwide. More specifically, it nullifies the FDA's decision to make the abortion pill, mifepristone, more accessible.
The medication abortion pill has been used effectively and safely for 20 years. FDA made an evidence-based decision to allow patients to fill this medication as they would fill any other prescription, by going to a drugstore or to their doctor or getting it through the mail.
The FDA decision removed a barrier for women in underserved communities in need of care. Reversing this decision harms the most vulnerable populations--women in maternity care deserts, women without reliable access to transportation or childcare, and women who can't take time off from work to visit a doctor.
Madam Speaker, I say this with emphasis: All women deserve the freedom to decide whether or when to start or grow a family without interference from politicians.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the science, listen to the FDA, and reject this rule for these and so many reasons.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, for the gentleman to say that people on our side of the aisle don't care about the fentanyl problem in this country, that we don't care that our constituents are dying, that people are dying in this country, that is offensive.
One of the reasons why people watching this debate despise Congress at this moment is because of the characterizations that are made by the gentleman.
I will tell you this: We believe we should fund our Border Patrol agents. We believe we should do more to confront these issues. We don't use these matters as a political football or political talking point. To come down here and say that somehow we don't care, that is offensive.
credit rating, Moody's warns.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, months after Fitch Ratings downgraded the U.S. credit rating, a Moody's analyst wrote that a shutdown ``would underscore the weakness of U.S. institutional and governance strength relative to other AAA-rated sovereigns that we have highlighted in recent years.''
Extreme MAGA Republicans are embarrassing our country internationally and exacerbating economic hardship at home when they openly brag about how they would welcome a government shutdown.
Madam Speaker, this is the theater of the absurd. The gentleman comes down here and talks about the border. Once again, his bill defunds border security. Does he propose to secure the border through volunteerism?
I am so sick of listening to the Republicans rant and rave about spending. Joe Biden has added $1.8 trillion to the national debt. That is a fact. Donald Trump, the last Republican President, added $8.2 trillion. Trump added as much in 4 years as his predecessor did in 8 years, and Republicans added $2 trillion to the debt with their tax cuts for the rich.
Now, the so-called pro-life party has the nerve to try to cut WIC, the women, infants, and children program, which helps provide food to new moms and very young children.
Now, let me explain this to the gentleman from Texas and to my Republican colleagues: Cutting funding for WIC means more malnourished babies. Malnourished babies end up needing expensive healthcare. Who pays the bill? It is Medicaid that pays. It is taxpayers who pay. In fact, according to USDA, every dollar spent on WIC means $3 in taxpayer savings.
Madam Speaker, what kind of twisted values would make someone think it is a good idea to cut taxes on billionaires but a bad idea to fund WIC, a program that saves money, a program that helps women, infants, and children?
All of these appropriations bills that are being brought to the floor at this last minute are so extreme that Republicans in the Senate won't even support them. These bills shouldn't go over to the Senate. They should go to a shredder.
Republicans want to gut programs that help seniors, gut programs that help students, gut programs that help working people. Instead of trying to do anything that helps anyone, they are obsessed with banning Pride flags from flying at our embassies. What is wrong with them?
This is absurd. What is happening here is not governing.
Just so everyone is clear: All of this should have been done months and months ago, and doing it now, 4 days before a shutdown and having no plan to avoid a shutdown, is incompetence, pure and simple.
I just saw a tweet from a reporter about conference calls that are going on amongst Republican Members, where Republicans are warning each other about getting their list of priorities straight, trying to figure out how you get to a deal, if you can get to a deal. They are saying we need some organization. You are just having those conference calls now.
Let me just say that it is clear that my Republican friends have no idea at all what they are doing. It is clear they have no plan to get us out of this mess. My Republican friends need to move out of the way and let serious people on both sides of the aisle do what we have to do to clean up the GOP's mess and keep government funded.
The Senate right now has come to a bipartisan compromise. That is a good thing. They are trying to avoid a shutdown that my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber don't seem to think is a big deal. They will know it is a big deal when they shut the government down and their constituents start calling and complaining about not getting paid, about the services that are being cut. They will hear loud and clear from their constituents--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
Now is time for the adults in the room to figure this out. The Senate has given us a way forward. We should take it.
When my friends say that they need more time to figure all this out, what have they been doing? For months, what have they been doing?
We have had enough of this nonsense. We have had enough talk about shutdowns. We need to work together in a bipartisan way, work in the way that our constituents expect us to work to get things done, not to shut things down, not to tear things apart, not to blow things up.
At the end of the day, we have our policy differences. When I look at these appropriations bills, I can say honestly to my friends that we don't share the same values. I don't understand how you can gut food and nutrition programs. I don't even understand how you can cut border security. I don't get the thinking behind all of that, but that is your problem to work out.
In the meantime, let's come together and do the right thing. Let's keep this government open.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source