Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense 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. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as you have heard, provides for the consideration of three partisan appropriations bills. While I certainly agree with my colleague from Georgia regarding the myriad of threats posed to our country, these bills fall far short of addressing those threats.

House Republicans have, regrettably, kicked off the appropriations season by doubling down on failed legislation that would, in effect, harm our servicemembers, abandon our allies, cede the U.N. to our adversaries, and withhold critical resources needed to secure our southern border.

When it comes to global leadership and national security, House Democrats and House Republicans have a very different approach. House Republicans' Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, H.R. 8771, ultimately revives the doomed isolationism of the early 20th century.

Across the globe, America's adversaries threaten the peace and prosperity of the free world. With wars in the Middle East and Europe and humanitarian crises on nearly every continent, the world needs American leadership.

How do House Republicans respond? They respond by introducing a bill that cuts international disaster assistance programs by $1.3 billion, cuts international financial institutions by $583 million, and cuts $362 million from programs to improve maternal and child health and fight infectious diseases. By cutting funding, ultimately, for the United Nations and other multilateral investments, this bill is a reversal of our country's historic position among the nations where we stand as a beacon for democracy and liberty.

Then we have H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill will secure our border. It will not. The bill falls short of our responsibility to provide for the safety and security of Americans. Ultimately, it disinvests, decreases funding, for a variety of critical programs designed to prevent threats from terrorists, transnational criminals, foreign adversaries, and violent extremists.

My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, do not want to secure the border. How do we know that? Because they had a chance to do precisely that just a few short months ago. They had a chance to do that with the Senate's bipartisan border plan. What did House Republicans do instead? They ensured that that bipartisan deal never even received a vote at the behest of their leader, former President Trump.

The proposal under consideration this week that Republicans have put on the floor cuts the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office by $48 million. It cuts the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by $10.4 million.

Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why would House Republicans put a bill on the floor that cuts Federal law enforcement training programs? It is a fair question.

The bill includes no funds for targeted violence and terrorism prevention grants and the shelter and services program. It cuts family reunification efforts by $33.9 million.

At bottom, Mr. Speaker, this is another wasted opportunity, in my view, for House Republicans to address what they say is a top priority: border security.

Finally, the rule includes H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This bill is extreme even by House Republican standards. Usually, in my experience, it has been the Rules Committee that has been responsible for, for lack of a better phrase, messing up these massive bipartisan efforts, at least during the 118th Congress under Republican control, but my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee didn't even get the opportunity to do that with respect to this bill because it came out of committee as a terrible piece of legislation.

It divides the country. It undermines national security. It includes provisions that fail to support service personnel. The bill cuts civilian positions at a time when the Department is struggling to meet readiness goals. A number of extreme policy riders that have been included within the bill target reproductive care for women, the LGBTQ community, and more. Finally, it fails to invest in a number of different important programs critical to our national security.

It is a bill, unfortunately, detached from reality, and of course the elephant in the room, what we all know to be true, is that it has no chance of becoming law.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. These three bills that we are considering this week have no chance of becoming law. The rest of this is theater.

What I would implore my colleagues to do is come back to the negotiating table. Let's negotiate and compromise in good faith and abandon this approach that they have unfortunately taken for the better part of the last 19 months in the 118th Congress, which has ultimately led to this Congress being the least productive in 100 years, in the history of this House.

Let's pursue solutions, not stunts.

I encourage my colleagues to perhaps follow that admonition. I suspect they won't, but hope springs eternal that they will get back to working with us so that we can get back to governing.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Americans want the border secure. House Republicans want the border secure.

The chairman said quite a bit there for me to respond to. I simply say with respect to the deficit, here is an article from just 2 days ago, June 24, 2024, in Axios. The headline reads: ``Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis.'' I will just read the first sentence. ``Former President Trump ran up the national debt by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis of their fiscal track records.'' Facts are facts, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore the nationwide right to abortion care.

This Monday was the 2-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, a decision that left millions of women without the reproductive rights and protections provided in Roe v. Wade for decades.

It is clear the far right won't stop there. Not only do the bills in this rule, the rule we are considering today, include restrictions on care for our servicemembers, restrictions on care for women and families abroad, restrictions on funding to end maternal deaths, but also, just for the record, an amendment was offered by one of my Republican colleagues to ban IVF treatments for servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. As States across our country create confusion and chaos by enacting Republican policies that I have described, House Democrats are fighting to protect our freedoms. H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, would ensure that fundamental reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is available across the country.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), a friend and colleague who has been a national leader on this issue, among many others.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can one argue that they would like to secure the border by advocating for the passage of a bill that they claim will fund border operations and then include in that bill a provision that prevents it from ever being considered by the Senate unless the Senate does its bidding and passes a completely separate bill.

Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. America. Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful sound it is to just utter the name of this great country of ours. Americans do not share a common ancestry or common religion, but we are bound together by something that is bigger than us: the ideals of freedom and democracy. Our belief and faith in democracy, and the freedoms it provides, unite us, and it strengthens us.

Yet, today's extreme Republican appropriations bills pit Americans against each other. They insert partisan culture wars into what should be funding to protect Americans from foreign wars. Republican culture wars undermine our unity. Their culture wars undermine our democracy, our security, and our freedom. Their culture wars limit our ability to see each other as something bigger than our individual selves, States, or party affiliation.

Sometimes it is hard to picture democracy, but we can feel it. We can feel it when we see those soldiers whom we celebrated recently because they crossed the channel and stormed Normandy with salt and fear in their mouths. We can see it when we imagine the sand that has blown around and seeped into the pores of our servicemen and -women in the Middle East. They were all fighting for democracy. That is what it feels like.

However, if this Republican Defense appropriations bill passes, then many of our brave servicewomen who tasted that sand would lose their own reproductive health freedoms even as they fight for American freedom.

These extreme Republican bills would take away the freedoms of LGBTQ servicemembers to be themselves, even as they fight for American freedoms in hostile countries.

That is not all. Republicans have cut funding to prepare our military for the dangers of climate change. Unlike the Republicans, Americans know climate change exists because we smell it in the wildfires that burn and the heat waves that kill. We can see it in the rising sea- and floodwaters that threaten our bases and our military readiness. Nevertheless, Republicans put our military at risk and give up strategic military advantage when they cut climate funding in these bills.

Meanwhile, the Republican Homeland Security appropriations bill cuts $1.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and they cut National Guard counter-drug interdiction funding.

Let me say that again: Republicans are proposing cuts to border protection funding from current levels. They are proposing, instead, a medieval form of defense for our country, a Trumpian wall, that doesn't do anything to stop the fentanyl streaming into our borders from China to kill our youth.

Republicans followed Trump when they killed the border security bill that existed. They do not care to protect us. They care about those partisan culture wars.

Finally, the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill cuts all funding for vital United Nations humanitarian assistance programs that help women and children.

What values do we hold and what American values do we send abroad when we turn our back on women and children across the world?

Indeed, we increase instability, and we increase the flow of migration when we cut this kind of funding.

The Republican culture wars in these bills don't help our constituents, and they harm our country at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everybody that H.R. 8752 provides $600 million for construction of the southern border wall. That is the cheapest and most effective way to stop illegal immigration. If President Biden wanted to stop about 80 percent of it right now, then he could simply put the remain in Mexico policies back in place that were actually working, but that would be an acknowledgement that President Trump was right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Scott to be an intellectually honest debater and Member, and I wonder maybe perhaps he will indulge me in a bit of a colloquy because I take him at his word that he believes that we have a crisis on the southern border.

That is the way you have described it, Mr. Scott, is that right?

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I think it is very obvious to every American.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Do you honestly believe that this homeland appropriations bill that we are considering, the funding bill, that it would ameliorate that crisis?

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I think that if you build a border wall, you solve a tremendous amount of the problems at the border.

Moreover, if President Biden cared and wanted to do something about it, he could simply put remain in Mexico back in place.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Scott, I am asking you about the bill we are considering here today. It is the bill that you are championing here on the floor, the homeland appropriations bill. I take it you believe in this bill.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I absolutely believe that it will help secure the southern border. There is $100 million in funding for a physical barrier. That is the cheapest and most effective way to do it. The President right now, President Joe Biden right now could put remain in Mexico back in place and stop 70 to 80 percent of it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Scott, if that is the case, and if you feel so passionate about the funding allocations in this bill, then why will the bill be held hostage the moment it passes this Chamber?

If this bill passes the House tomorrow, Mr. Scott, when will this bill be sent to the United States Senate?

The next day, the next week, the next month, or the next year?

Reclaiming my time, I ask because under the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have written that the homeland appropriations bill will go nowhere until the United States Senate passes a completely different and separate bill that has only garnered less than one-third of support from the United States.

It makes no sense, and it is nonsensical to pass a funding bill for homeland security, for Border Patrol, for TSA, and for FEMA, and then to hold that bill hostage and not allow the Senate to take it up. Any Member who votes for this appropriation bill is doing precisely that. It is nonsensical.

I heard another one of my colleagues come to the floor and defend this practice. It is intellectually disingenuous to suggest that this is normal practice of the House.

Let me read you a quote, Mr. Speaker: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.'' Let me repeat: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a Republican Congressman, Tom Massie, yesterday, in the Rules Committee who was honest in his criticism of the approach that House Republicans are taking by continuing to put this gimmick provision within the rule.

If the other side wants to take up a debate about policy with respect to our southern border, then let's have the debate. Don't hold hostage compensation for Border Patrol and Federal employees securing our border and keeping our communities safe. That is not the way to govern.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I will deliver prior to closing, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by my colleague from Missouri, there is certainly no confusion on our side of the aisle, no confusion whatsoever. Republicans have said that they would like to address the crisis on our southern border, and they tanked a bipartisan border bill that was negotiated by some of the more prominent conservative members of the Senate Republican Conference. They did that at the behest of the former President.

Now, House Republicans have asked the House to consider and to pass an appropriations bill but have decided they will take their own appropriations bill hostage, as they did a year ago, unless and until the Senate passes a different piece of legislation. That piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, could not get majority support from the Senate Republican Conference.

By way of background, yes, House Republicans have a majority, a dwindling majority, here in the House of Representatives. They are in the minority in the United States Senate. Of course, as the gentleman knows, they do not have a Republican President in the White House. So, compromise and thoughtful negotiation will be required to get anything done in this Congress. Holding your own bill hostage until the Senate passes a separate bill is not that.

What my friend from Georgia fails to mention as he talks about if and when the Senate may pass H.R. 2, which I understand he is very passionate about, is that Border Patrol agents will go unpaid in the meantime. TSA agents will go unpaid in the meantime.

That is my objection. My objection is to the process that House Republicans have created and crafted, and it is a bipartisan objection. I am not the only one making it.

As I said, Representative Massie, I thought, articulated well the concerns with respect to this approach. He and I don't agree on a lot, but we certainly agree on this. A gimmick like this that holds a bill of this consequence hostage does not make sense.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I think the question on the minds of the American people, certainly the question on my mind, is: Why do we go through this same partisan process with every major piece of legislation? Why do House Republican leaders force us to go through 6 months of theatrics before we pass the final bipartisan funding bills?

We know how this story ends. It is literally always this same plot. Act one, Members of Congress engage in a bipartisan process and work through proposed legislation in their respective subcommittees. Act two, the committee holds a markup. In many cases, those bills retain bipartisan support. Then, act three, the bills make their way to the Rules Committee, where chaos unfolds. Enter all the partisan policy riders, the late-night, closed-door meetings, the usual Republican in- fighting, and so forth. This same process has resulted in Republican leadership having to rely on votes from House Democrats to govern at every turn.

Just so we are clear, House Democrats ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year. House Democrats kept the government funded. House Democrats carried the vote for the fiscal year 2024 NDAA. House Democrats got the national security supplemental to the President's desk.

It is clear to me and all those watching that House Democrats remain committed to governing, and we will continue to do so because our communities deserve and demand it. We will stand firm against legislation that would harm American citizens, our global standing, and the servicemembers who sacrifice everything to protect us.

In the end, the reality is that this institution will rely once again on the strong, principled leadership of Leader Jeffries, Ranking Member DeLauro, and the other four corners to put together a sensible deal.

It is unfortunate that we are wasting valuable time on these bills instead of engaging in a bipartisan process from the start. Again, I urge my Republican colleagues to get serious about this government funding process.

The far right is clearly putting us again, Mr. Speaker, on a path toward yet another government shutdown showdown in September. It is what they want. It is what they are driving us toward. My Republican colleagues have a chance, an opportunity, to prevent that. I urge them to take it. They can do that by opposing the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, our recollections of the last couple of years are a little different. I remember Senate Democrats, without a single Republican vote, adopting what they call the Inflation Reduction Act, which spurred inflation inside the United States of America. I remember them passing what they refer to as the American Rescue Plan, which spurred inflation inside the United States of America. Those two pieces of legislation spent better than $3 trillion without a single Republican vote.

I then remember, in December, the Senate passed an omnibus bill. Yes, there were a few Republicans who voted with every Democrat to pass that omnibus bill. What the Senate did, with the support of the President of the United States, is when they spent all of that money, they intentionally did not raise the national debt to pay for all the spending that they did, where, in some cases, Democrats were 100 percent of the votes, and in others, they were probably 97, 98 percent of the votes. That was done for political reasons, to put Republicans in a bad position.

Then, under Speaker McCarthy, the country watched as Joe Biden laughed and said House Republicans are going to destroy the economy by not raising the national debt to pay for all the spending that the Democrats did, and Speaker McCarthy actually got it done. He actually got it done. I voted for it. I didn't vote for all the spending, but I had to vote for the debt limit increase. Actually, there were some spending reductions in there.

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, one of the agreements was that President Biden would no longer pay off student debt. Public funds would no longer be used to pay off student debt. What did the President of the United States do? As soon as the agreement is signed, as soon as the debt limit is raised, he turned around and started doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do. Bipartisanship is very hard when you have a President who doesn't do what he says he is going to do, and he is a member of the other party.

One last thing before I close. Republicans adopted the continuing resolution to keep the government open. The payback that Speaker McCarthy got for adopting that continuing resolution is that every member of the Democratic Party voted with about six members of the Republican Party to remove him from office. So, let's not pretend like when Republicans do what it takes to keep the government open and to keep the government from going into default that our leadership team doesn't pay a price for it.

You all have done things that have never been done in the history of the country. You have provided 95 percent of the votes to do things that have never been done in modern times--really, in the history of the country.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has the ability to advance 3 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. These bills fund programs and policies that put the interests of the American people first and prioritize the core missions of the departments they fund.

They put the mission ahead of the agenda. They provide for our national defense, counter our adversaries, and empower our servicemembers who answer the call to defend our country. They support our allies around the world and prohibit funds for international organizations that seek to undercut the interests of the United States and our allies.

They provide critical funding to defend our southern border and prohibit funding for programs and agendas that have distracted from this goal and led to the immigration crisis that we currently face as a country.

These are good bills, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1316 Offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 18. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 19. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I missed a recorded vote on On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 1316. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source