Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr Speaker, two weeks ago I learned with great sadness about the passing of Sgt. Gordon F. Lee, a retired officer with the Easton Police Department who passed away on Monday, August 19, 2024, at the age of 46. During his time at the Easton Police Department, Sgt. Lee served with the K-9 unit, trained new officers and recruits as instructor and was a member of the department's SWAT Critical Response Unit. Before that, he honorably served with the U S. Marine Corps. Sgt. Lee retired from active duty with the Easton Police Department in February of 2024. Sgt. Lee dedicated his life to helping others, putting his own life on the line to protect and serve the community he so much loved. His determination and hard work made him an outstanding leader, an excellent teacher and invaluable friend and mentor to so many in the Maryland police community and beyond. I would like to express my sincere condolences to the Lee family and the entire Easton Police Department. The Eastern Shore is forever grateful for Sgt. Lee's commitment and dedication.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Nicholas ``Nick'' Hargrove, an Eastern Shore seafood processor and oyster restoration expert who has had tremendous impact on the health and sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay. Nick is the owner of Tilghman Island Seafood which processes approximately 20,000 pounds of blue catfish daily. Through his hard work and dedication, Nick is instrumental in protecting crabs, perch, menhaden, and others, against the invasive blue catfish population plaguing the Bay. Nick has also contributed to addressing the oyster shell shortage by replanting millions of dried oyster shells in the Chesapeake Bay. On behalf of the people of the Maryland's First Congressional District, I thank Nick for his tireless work and dedication to preserving the Chesapeake Bay for future generations to come.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following Proclamation in honor of the 225th anniversary of the Star Democrat newspaper published in Easton, Maryland. Whereas, the Star Democrat newspaper was first rolled off the press in 1799 when The Honorable John Adams was the sitting President of the United States and The Honorable George Washington was still alive and living his final year on his plantation at Mount Vernon; and Whereas, the Star Democrat--originally the Republican Star--was a staunch supporter of Jeffersonian democracy and the ideas of The Honorable Thomas Jefferson; and Whereas, the newspaper's original philosophy of individual liberty, local autonomy and limited central government continues to this day; and Whereas, the Star Democrat has seen the Nation survive and live through numerous wars and conflicts with its offices twice destroyed in fires and once wrecked by a mob of vandals, while one of its editors arrested and exiled by Federal troops during the Civil War; and Whereas, on August 21, 2024, the Star Democrat will celebrate its 225th anniversary of publication. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Andy Harris, Member of Congress, do hereby proclaim and celebrate The Star Democrat for its role and service to the Maryland community and our country on its 225th anniversary.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I mean, with Ozempic and Wegovy, maybe it is quicker, but these are not the solution. The solution is not to become obese and then take a drug to reduce the obesity. It is not to become obese in the first place, but your point is critical. Right now, a 3-year-old has a lower life expectancy than a 60-year- old had at the same age. That is because our adults are getting these chronic diseases at an increasing rate. That 3-year-old, if we don't change the trajectory, will have much less of a chance to live to the same age as their grandfather did or their father did. We cannot accept that in America. We are actually in a situation where our children have a lower life expectancy than us. This is the opposite of everything anybody does anything for. As a father, you want to do everything for your children so they have it better than you. We are kind of intentionally, because we are intentional in how we spend dollars, forcing our children to a lower, shorter life expectancy than we have. Shame on us if we don't fix this.

Mr. HARRIS. That is right. You bring up a good point. The first thing you start with is say that we don't have to change-- let's do a few pilot programs. Let's get some data. Otherwise, it is incredibly difficult to see whether some of these ideas work to change the way people buy and their habits. Obviously, it will take a generation for the obesity that already exists to plateau.

Mr. HARRIS. There is no question that that is true. The fact is that we can send a strong economic signal through our ability to modify what is available under food programs, not only direct payments but also the fact that, over the past 50 years, we have kind of funneled all the production, as you said, into only a handful of major crops. In my district, for instance, they used to grow tomatoes. It used to be one of the tomato capitals of the country. I didn't even know this, but it is not anymore. It is just soybeans and corn, partly because we have a big poultry industry, but the variety of crops has just disappeared. Again, everything comes together. Everything points in the same direction. We must address the obesity crisis. We know what causes it. We actually have a pretty good idea of how to solve it, how to get there, but we have to decide that that is something we are going to do. I think the average American understands it. I think they do.

Mr. HARRIS. It could. Every single addictive issue in front of us involves--whether it is an addiction like opioid addiction, an addiction like sugar addiction, an addiction like gambling, or your cell phones and the fact that our youth now spend 7 hours a day on their cell phones, on the internet and playing games and things, it is because this is designed to release dopamine in the brain. We understand it is the exact same mechanism, and it is up to us. People say to educate. Our government shouldn't be involved in this. Wait a minute, we are talking about regulating the industry for children with regard to apps, regulating the opioid industry because it is addictive, dealing with gambling because it is addictive. Why wouldn't we talk about a food addiction that leads to misery and huge economic costs?

Mr. HARRIS. One of the experts said, quite accurately, that when you deal with an addiction--and we won't get into that today, but by the way, just so everybody understands, it is now pretty clear from brain chemistry that sugar--and when we say sugar, mostly it is fructose because the other sugar is cane sugar, which is sucrose, a combination of fructose and glucose. Fructose, basically, we understand that it is actually physically addictive in the brain because it results through the modifier of MGO, a chemical called MGO, which binds to receptors in the brain. It actually releases dopamine.

Mr. HARRIS. It is direct. Again, even if this were economically neutral--but it is not--one would make the argument that the right thing to do for people is to give them a better, healthier life.

Mr. HARRIS. I agree. This is not just about economics. It is using borrowed money to actually cause the need for more borrowed money in the future.

Mr. HARRIS. Of course, they are sicker because we know these diseases relate to it. The studies were done against individuals who had the same socioeconomic status, same income, but were not getting SNAP benefits.

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. I chair the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and we are in charge of funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the SNAP program. If you were paying attention about an hour ago, an hour and a half ago, to the folks from the other side of the aisle, all they wanted to do was push more money into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The second word there, by the way, is ``nutrition.'' If you go back to the original founding, the program was founded to provide nutrition. In the early days of the program, there was a significant number of people in the country who actually did not receive enough calories. Literally, they didn't receive enough calories. At that time, the emphasis was to get food of all kinds to these folks so that they are not calorie starved. Again, I talked about the trend in obesity, and what we see is that something is happening. We have programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program where the last time they looked at it was in 2016--it might have been earlier than that--where 10 percent of the funds went to sugary soda. Remember, this is a $122 billion a year program of taxpayer dollars. We ask taxpayers to pony up or to borrow $122 billion to put into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Ten percent is on sugary soda, $12 billion, our best estimate, is spent on something that we now know--maybe 40 or 50 years ago when the obesity rate was 6 percent or 3-plus percent, we didn't know that. We do know now what contributes to obesity. We do know that insulin resistance, the presence of sugars and processed foods in the diet, directly cause obesity. Of course, diabetes, which again we will get to in the future, and probably also hypertension to some extent, are all interrelated diseases. We actually know that that is bad. I have proposed taking out nonnutritious--it is about 20 percent. It is 10 percent sugary soda beverages and another 10 percent salty snacks, ultra-processed food. Again, it raises your insulin levels. It does all the bad things that ultimately lead to an increased amount of fatty tissue and obesity. Let's just say that we will allow States to restrict that in a program and take that money and spend it on fruits and vegetables or something. That sounds like a pretty novel idea. That sounds like a pretty good idea based on the scientific evidence. The pushback has been tremendous, mainly from the other side of the aisle, which is: No, all we need to do is spend more money on this program. I would suggest to the gentleman from Arizona that we have enough proof that what we have been doing hasn't been working. In fact, it has been making the problem worse because the data on people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shows they are more obese and more overweight.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me some time today. Mr. Speaker, to those who see the gentleman virtually every week come up here and talk about the economics of the United States and our debt problems and things like that, today, we will take a little different view because we are going to talk about something that doesn't just have to do with economics; it has to do with providing a healthier America. An America where, yes, we would save money if we were healthier, but the other benefits are so tremendous. We are not doing this just because we want to save money; we are doing this because we think this is actually the right approach for Americans. If you look at the cost of healthcare, about 70 percent is to take care of chronic diseases and the big chronic diseases are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. They are the big chronic diseases. Cancer is not a chronic disease. It is an acute disease. It is the chronic diseases that are costing literally hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States. Today, we are going to focus on obesity. Now, hopefully in the future, we will focus on diabetes, maybe on hypertension. The reason why it is so important to start with these three is that the amount of spending, as the gentleman indicates, is tremendous. I am going to pull some data from this study from the Milken Institute. It is called America's obesity crisis. It is from 2018, so 5\1/2\ years ago, October 2018, but it is subtitled, ``The Health and Economic Cost of Excess Weight.'' The health and economic costs because they are both costs. Again, it is not just dollars and cents. They count, but the fact of life is just not as good for someone who has a chronic disease, so let's do something to prevent it. However, the first thing you have to do is say, what is the history of obesity in the United States? Look, I have been on this Earth 67 years. I will tell you that it has been noticeable that more Americans are obese or overweight. It is true throughout the world, but let's concentrate on America. These are medical definitions. If you are higher than the normal range of weight, you are overweight, if you are slightly higher; then you are obese if you are higher than that; and then severe obesity or morbidly obese, as well. Using these definitions, the same definitions in 1962, 3.4 percent of adults were considered obese. Again, it is not overweight; it is obese. If it is more than overweight; it is obese. From 1962 to 2000, 30.5 percent. In 2016, 39.8 percent. Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago, it was 39.8 percent. The latest data the CDC has which is from 2017 to 2020, 41.9 percent. Mr. Speaker, 41.9 percent of Americans classified as obese. Now, why is that classification important? By the way, the demographic breakdown is very interesting because what we ought to be doing is, we ought to be looking at the demographics and paying attention to where it exists in the population: 49.9 percent of Black adults are obese, 45.6 percent of Hispanic adults, 41.4 percent of White adults, 16.1 percent of Asian adults. It actually is overrepresented in the Black and Hispanic communities, but why is that important? By the way, that is adults. The striking thing is for children in the last year that we have data: 16.1 percent overweight; 19.3 percent obese, one in five children are considered obese; one in 16, 6.1 percent, severe obesity in children. Again, that severe obesity in children number is actually higher at 6.1 percent than the entire adult population back in 1962. It begs the question of why it is so important that we identify obesity. It is because I think a lot of people don't understand the broad range of diseases, including expensive healthcare diseases, in which the risk of that disease is higher if you are obese. It is not everybody who is obese who has these problems, but if you are obese, you are statistically more likely to have these problems. I want to read the list so you understand why this is such a large economic problem. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, most people don't realize obesity is a risk factor for that. We worry a lot about that because the cost of Alzheimer's in America and the treatment, again, is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Other diseases include asthma and COPD; breast cancer--we know that cancers are; chronic back pain; colorectal cancer; congestive heart failure--again, a large consumer of healthcare dollars; coronary artery disease; diabetes, of course. Again, diabetes and obesity kind of go hand-in-hand, but only 20 percent of the cost of obesity, again, the approximately $1.7 trillion annual cost back in 2016, only 20 percent of that can be attributed to the coexistence of diabetes and obesity. Again, diabetes has to be handled by itself, but obesity is a risk factor for that. Dyslipidemia, so people with high cholesterol and lipids; end-stage renal disease; endometrial cancer; esophageal adenocarcinoma; gallbladder cancer; gallbladder disease; gastric adenocarcinoma, so stomach cancer; hypertension; liver cancer; osteoarthritis; ovarian cancer; pancreatic cancer; prostate cancer; renal cancer; and stroke-- all of these have a higher incidence in someone with obesity. Scientifically, we say that if we can reduce obesity, we will reduce the incidence of all these diseases and the costs associated with them. The costs associated with them attributable to obesity are over $1.5 trillion a year, both direct costs, the cost to actually treat someone, and the indirect costs, the cost of decreased productivity and decreased contribution to the GDP and the economy by someone who is ill, all these indirect and direct costs. These numbers are just staggering.

Mr. HARRIS. In the hearing today, we had someone suggest that all we need to do is do public service announcements, that we will just do education.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate National Police Week, I take a moment to honor the memory of Wicomico County Deputy Sheriff Glenn Hilliard, a heroic Maryland Eastern Shore police officer who was killed in the line of duty while protecting his community from a violent criminal; unfortunately, an all too often occurrence in today's America. In the evening hours of June 12, 2022, Officer Hilliard received a call that a fleeing fugitive was in the surrounding area. While certainly potentially dangerous, this call wasn't much different from the hundreds of calls for help the Wicomico County police departments and police departments across the country receive daily as they confront crime to protect our communities. Sadly, for Officer Hilliard, this call to duty would be his last. As he pursued the wanted criminal, the fugitive turned and fired, ultimately taking the life of Officer Hilliard. As Officer Hilliard's family reminds us, he died doing what he loved and left behind a legacy of selflessly defending his community. In the end, it was not the way Officer Hilliard died but the way he lived. As we honor National Police Week, let's take a moment to thank the many police officers who risk their lives so we can be safe. May the memory of Officer Glenn Hilliard and all our fallen police officers never be forgotten.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. What we are watching is a complete foreign policy failure on the part of the Biden administration. And we are watching it on two fronts. We are watching it in Eastern Europe where peace prevailed under the last administration, and it is no coincidence that shortly after this administration bungles the withdrawal from Afghanistan that Mr. Putin invades Eastern Europe. Then on October 7, Hamas--after this administration actively interfered with an internal discussion they were having about their court system--Hamas, again, detecting weakness, launched that horrific inhumane attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 where they take over 200 hostages. Mr. Speaker, the latest news, literally just coming out today, is in the negotiations. The Israelis were willing to negotiate a cease-fire, Hamas just has to release 40 hostages--Israeli hostages--and Hamas says they don't even have 40 Israeli hostages anymore. Now, there are only two possible explanations for that. Hamas is lying, and they have more than 40. Actually we heard in the rule debate today from the other side of the aisle they said: Well, we should be talking about this, there are 133 hostages. Well, Hamas says there aren't anymore. So they are either lying that the hostages aren't there, or even worse, they killed the hostages. These are civilian hostages. These are not uniformed members. These are civilians. I wore the uniform of the country. You put on the uniform of the country, and let me tell you something, you understand you could be taken prisoner, you could be subject to violence during war, but you don't expect it in this unprovoked attack on October 7 on civilians. So furthermore, this administration, which couldn't even get a withdrawal from a war correct, they couldn't even withdraw from a war correctly, they are trying to tell the Israelis, who are under an existential threat--Mr. Speaker, we don't understand that in America because we have two oceans on two sides and two friendly nations to the north and south. We don't understand what it is like to live in a neighborhood where some of your neighbors have said: Death to your country, that your country shouldn't exist. We don't understand that. Yet this administration and this Pentagon is attempting to tell Israel how to win this war. And what they want after the war is a two- state solution. Well, look, I want peace and I want utopia and I want all that too, but let's investigate. What do they mean by a two-state solution? Wait a minute. Gaza was a two-state solution. Gaza got its independence, its ability to govern itself, humanitarian aid by the hundreds of millions of dollars, including from the United States which pours into Gaza to make life good for the citizens. They bring water in, bring all the infrastructure in, and the only infrastructure Hamas built were tunnels under the city so they could launch an attack and have a place to hide when Israel responded to the attack. That is what they did, that is what a two-state solution looks like in Israel. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you had the privilege to visit Israel and land at Ben Gurion Airport. Ben Gurion Airport is between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and if you look at the map of Israel and you look just to the northeast of Ben Gurion Airport, there sits a piece of the West Bank--what the Palestinians want; they want to claim that territory. If you look at that--and we visited one of those places--it is on an elevation. From that piece of the West Bank, you can look down in the valley and there is Ben Gurion Airport. The people who took me up there said: Tell me why a two-state solution doesn't work, because if this is a second state, a single shoulder-fired rocket at an incoming jumbo jet--because these jets are big that come into that airport--can destroy that airplane. The effect of just that one shoulder-fired rocket would be bringing the economy of Israel to its knees because you would disable--no international flights would go into Ben Gurion. Of course, they wouldn't go into Ben Gurion. You don't think that can occur? Of course, it can occur. Israel has to be able to defend its territories. It has sworn enemies. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the body that at that protest in Michigan over the weekend, they weren't chanting only ``death to Israel,'' they were chanting ``death to America.'' This protest didn't occur in Riyadh. It didn't occur in Jordan. It didn't occur in Tehran. It occurred in Michigan; people in this country calling for death to America. If we think people in this country are calling for death to America, imagine what they are thinking about in Tehran where they really want to bring death to America, where they are weeks away from a breakout on three nuclear weapons. We know what the damage of only one nuclear weapon can do. They are weeks away from a breakout on three nuclear weapons. This all happened under this administration's watch where we think the appropriate response to Iran is to send them another pallet full of $6 billion with them promising, Oh, it is only for humanitarian aid-- ignoring the fact that money is completely fungible. Of course, that administration in Tehran is going to say: Oh, well now we don't have to buy food here. We can use that American money to buy the food, and we are going to spend that money to send to Hezbollah in the north, with tens of thousands of rockets that could rain down on northern Israel to Hamas and Gaza, to the militia that surround them in Syria, the Iranian-backed militia. How naive can you be about the dangers of this world? How naive can you be? Well, we know how naive you can be because you just have to go to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to find it. Where in this election year, they are putting the security of one our best allies in the country up for bid for electoral votes. That is a real shame. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for giving me the few minutes because our friends in Israel deserve the full, unqualified support of the United States to win their war. It is not our war; it is their war. Existential threats to one of our best allies, they deserve our help, not our criticism.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am going to talk a little about Bidenomics. It is interesting the President doesn't talking about Bidenomics anymore. He thought about a year ago it would be a neat thing to talk about, but I guess the problem is that reality struck. Just over a month ago, President Biden stood right in front of where you stand now, Mr. Speaker, in this very Chamber to give his State of the Union Address. He declared: ``Our economy is the envy of the world.'' Well, just today, the Consumer Price Index, a key inflation index, came in ``hotter than expected.'' By the way, that is not good news for Americans. It actually increased to 3\1/2\ percent. The past few years, it has been higher than it has been in 40 years. As we all pay more for almost everything in Joe Biden's economy, let's take a really close look at the economy that Joe Biden built. Well, when Joe Biden took office, the national debt was $28.7 trillion, a huge amount of debt, but now it is approaching $35 trillion, or more than $250,000 of debt for every American household. Now, in my district, that debt is higher than the average mortgage in my district. For the average family, the mortgage is the least of their debt worries now. Now, it is the Federal debt. The CBO projects that by 2031, $2 trillion deficits will be the norm, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as usual the CBO gets this wrong because this year it is going to be way over $2 trillion. In fact, over the last calendar year, from last April to the beginning of this April, the Federal debt has increased over $3 trillion under Joe Biden's watch. Joe Biden's new spending initiatives, just the new spending initiatives in the budget he just proposed, adds up to a price tag of 5.5 trillion more dollars over the next 10 years, and that is just new spending. That doesn't count the ongoing growth of existing Federal programs that he projects in his budget. Together, all this new spending is going to drive up Federal deficits to 10 percent of GDP, a level we have only seen in the modern era during the national emergencies of COVID and World War II. Now, since Joe Biden took office, inflation has risen to historic levels and make no mistake, Bidenflation is a direct result of Joe Biden and the Democrats' out-of-control government spending. Just a couple of days ago, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, no friend of this side of the aisle, warned in a letter to his shareholders that interest rates could rise to 8 percent or higher. He also mentions drivers of persistent inflation being military conflict throughout the world and fiscal deficits. Let me tell you something, the Biden administration are absolute champions of military conflicts throughout the world and fiscal deficits. The bottom line is, we all know that under the last administration there were no hot wars. The Middle East actually was becoming more peaceful, not less peaceful. The Russians were not advancing in Ukraine. All that changed with this administration and the resulting military spending that is going to be necessary worldwide will drive inflation even higher. That is not my word; that is the word, again, of the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, a person who understands how this economy works. Now, President Biden's economy is affecting Americans of every age and we all know it. In fact, according to a recent survey, one in eight retirees now plan to return to work this year because they simply can't afford retirement anymore. Inflation has driven up the cost of everything--groceries, gasoline, housing, rent, everything. In a recent study, The Wall Street Journal showed that a $100 grocery list from 2019--and for those of you keeping score, that was during the last administration--now costs $137. Anybody who is watching us to day who goes to the grocery store, Mr. Speaker, knows this is true. They know what a loaf of bread costs. They know what a dozen eggs costs. They know what a gallon of milk costs. When they go down the aisles, they know everything is more expensive under Joe Biden's watch. If Joe Biden thinks the economy he built is ``such an envy,'' maybe he ought to take a walk through a grocery store. Within the first 2 years of this administration, Joe Biden and the House Democrats passed their so-called American Rescue Plan--I don't think we feel too rescued, to be honest with you--and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which is the real laugh because everybody knows inflation isn't reduced from where it was in the last administration. Both of those sent Federal Government spending sky- high, again, what Jamie Dimon warns us is going to lead to a prolonged inflationary period and high interest rates. Lastly, I will talk about energy prices because when you go to the gas pump, if you go to buy diesel to put in your farm tractor or truck, you know what it costs now. It costs about 50 percent more than it did under the last administration. Energy prices, your electric bill, your heating bill, everything is going sky-high because of this President's policies. Make no mistake, Joe Biden's out-of-control spending, his spending agenda, and his economic policies have made life simply unaffordable for American families.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Today, I rise, as fellow members of my delegation have, to speak regarding the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge and especially to honor the memory of the hardworking men who lost their lives the morning the bridge collapsed. These hardworking men were fellow Marylanders: husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends. Their passing serves as a solemn reminder to cherish our own lives and the lives of those we love deeply. Mr. Speaker, the Maryland congressional delegation stands united as we mourn those lost and extend our heartfelt condolences to their grieving families. I also want to take a moment to recognize Maryland's brave first responders whose heroic actions saved lives the morning the Key Bridge collapsed. Once that mayday call was issued from the approaching ship, Maryland Transportation Authority Police acted quickly and, in less than 2 minutes, stopped traffic from coming over the bridge. There is no doubt these immediate actions saved lives and averted an even greater tragedy. We thank those officers who protect us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even in the middle of the night while most of us are asleep, as was the case that day. Mr. Speaker, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge and the closure of the Port of Baltimore has caused serious economic consequences for our State's economy. The Baltimore Port is the largest U.S. port for handling farming construction machinery. It handles agricultural products. It is also a large export facility for American coal. Mr. Speaker, 15,000 jobs directly depend on the Port of Baltimore. I especially thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their quick and tireless work to get the channel cleared so that the port can reopen as soon as possible. As we continue to work on the cleanup phase of the bridge collapse, it is important that we seek maximum liability from those foreign companies that owned and operated the ship that crashed into the bridge. As I have long said, American taxpayers in both Maryland and across the country should not be held responsible to pay for the cost to rebuild a bridge if, indeed, there was negligence on the part of foreign-owned shipping companies. Mr. Speaker, in closing, tragedy knows no partisanship. The Key Bridge collapse wasn't a Republican tragedy, and it wasn't a Democrat tragedy. The solution to clearing the channel, reopening the port, and building the bridge back even better than it was before won't be a partisan solution. It will be a bipartisan one. As we navigate the necessary legislation going forward, we all commit in the delegation to working in a bipartisan way to cut through Federal red tape, clear that channel, open that port, and construct an even better, safer bridge so that our fellow Marylanders, Maryland's economy, and those affected by this tragedy will come back stronger, safer, and united.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about fairness. I do want to mention, though, the memory is a little short on the other side of the aisle. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act where this was implemented was passed on reconciliation. It only required a simple majority. Moreover, the Democrats when they passed the Inflation Reduction Act depended on only a simple majority. They could easily have put their recommended SALT cures into that bill. It absolutely fits in with reconciliation which are budgetary items. That is what this is. Nonetheless, they chose not to. So one has to ask: Why did they choose to spend $1 trillion on expensive green energy projects and not yield tax relief to their own constituents? I can't answer that, only they can. Nevertheless, let's set the record straight. The Democrats had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to on SALT. They complained about it for years. They could have fixed it. They choose not to. They deliberately chose not to in a vehicle that only required a simple majority. So this is about fairness. Mr. Speaker, when we passed that in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--one of the greatest stimuli to the American economy ever--we, interestingly, chose not to inflation index that $10,000. Now, thanks to Bidenflation, it should be around $15,000. So our decision is that even just to make it fair for inflation caused by President Biden and his policies, we could have chosen to just raise it $15,000, but, no, we did, I think, what was the right thing to do, which is to say that there is no penalty to a family, because on this side of the aisle we actually think the idea of family is pretty good for this country. We don't want to disincentivize it. We decided we would take and just remove what I would call the marriage penalty from this. I think it is the right decision. One of the gentlemen who supports this mentioned that this goes far beyond blue States. This goes into States where, because of Bidenflation, housing prices have gone up, and, Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you, those property taxes are going to go up for a variety of reasons. The time to do this is now, it is appropriate, and I fully support the rule.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration is a complete and dangerous failure at our southern border. Last month, I joined nearly 60 of my House Republican colleagues to witness firsthand the Biden administration's catastrophe at Eagle Pass, Texas, in the Del Rio sector of our southern border. After being briefed by Border Patrol at the southern border, it became clear to me that this administration has allowed dangerous terrorists, drug traffickers, child sex traffickers, and other human traffickers to enter this country easily as a result of this administration's wide open southern border policies. In fact, since Joe Biden took office, 361 individuals whose names appear on the terrorist watch list have been apprehended attempting to cross our southern border illegally. Who in the world knows how many from that terrorist watch list were among the millions of got-aways, people who weren't apprehended at the southern border? In addition to these terrorists coming through our borders, more than 54,000 pounds of fentanyl has been intercepted at American borders. Now, I know fentanyl well. I am an anesthesiologist by trade. We use it in the operating room all the time. 54,000 pounds of fentanyl is enough to kill the entire human population of the planet. That is the amount that was intercepted at the southern border. Only God knows how much was not intercepted at the southern border because our Border Patrol agents, instead of patrolling the border, are processing illegal immigrants into our interior through the asylum process. As we stood at the banks of the Rio Grande watching this catastrophe unfold at our southern border, the President of the United States that very same day that we were down there chose to help the flow of illegal immigration by actually sending his lawyers into Federal court to remove the razor wire that the Texas Department of Public Safety had put up to protect their communities from the invasion, the protection that Joe Biden was not providing to the State of Texas or to the rest of America. Now, while speaking to the press yesterday, Joe Biden, with a straight face, declared: ``I've done all I can do. Just give me the power. . . . Give me the Border Patrol, give me the people, the judges--give me the people who can stop this and make it work right.'' Wow is all I have to say. The American people know that he refuses to admit that during his first 100 days in office, he took 94 executive actions on immigration, most notably including the halting of the construction of the border wall. Now, I will note, Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting. He has got a wall around his house, but he won't put a wall around our country to protect us from invasion. In August 2022, President Biden and his administration decided to make the border crisis worse by formally ending President Trump's successful remain in Mexico program. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the President could at any time reinstate the program under the same statutes and laws that were in place during President Trump. President Biden could reinstate remain in Mexico tonight. I would suggest if the President is listening, Mr. President, you asked yesterday what you can do. Pick up a pen, reinstate remain in Mexico. If that wasn't bad enough, the Biden administration announced on May 10, 2023, that it would allow for the release of migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them. Millions of people entering the United States, given identification papers, even if we really have no idea who they are, and we are not tracking them at all. That is mind-boggling to most Americans. Make no mistake, Joe Biden absolutely has the power to stop this invasion. He is simply unwilling to do it and unwilling to use those powers. It is a reckless dereliction of duty for the Biden administration, our border czar Kamala Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas to continually allow the cartels to smuggle both humans and fentanyl into our streets without putting an end to this crisis. It is well within his power. Last year, in May, House Republicans passed the Secure the Border Act, a comprehensive immigration overhaul that would protect and secure the United States from illegal immigration, force the Biden administration to restart construction of the border wall, end catch and release--very important--and increase the number of Border Patrol agents to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl into this country. House Republicans passed that bill a year ago, but Leader Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate refuse to even take up the bill for a vote. Shame on them. If President Biden were really serious about fixing the crisis at our southern border, he would end it today by reinstating the successful border policies put in place by President Trump and instructing the Senate to pass H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act passed by House Republicans, tomorrow before they go home on their weekend break.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. The gentleman is from a border State, but, Mr. Speaker, it is true that every State is now a border State. Our communities are being deluged with individuals who are in this country illegally. That is the bottom line. Every community realizes it. I had the opportunity to go with Speaker Johnson to Eagle Pass. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, it was eye-opening. It was eye-opening because, as you know, right now, as we are standing here on the floor today, the Biden Department of Justice is literally suing the Texas Department of Public Safety because Texas actually wants to defend the border. Yes, you heard that right. The President, who comes out of the meeting yesterday with the Speaker and the leaders over in the House and the Senate and says, oh, we have to do something about the border, yes, he is doing something about it. He sent his lawyers into court to actually tell the Texas department to stand down from defending our border. Those are the facts. I was there. We got briefed by the directors of the Texas Department of Public Safety, who will tell you that, yes, in fact, they watched the Border Patrol--look, great men and women. They raised their hands and said they were going to obey what their orders were. They are functioning as social workers. That is it. They will tell you. Mr. Speaker, one of the most revealing facts was the day when they had 6,000 people come to Eagle Pass. We stood in the facility. They will tell you that this facility was originally designed to process about 100 people a day, maybe 200. It is not a permanent facility, by the way. It is a soft-sided facility. It is a tent. They had to do it that way because nobody could have projected that we were going to process thousands of people a day. They said, well, we expanded it and can process about 1,000 people a day. What happens when 6,000 people cross the border, and this administration doesn't turn them back, doesn't have a return to Mexico policy? By the way, just to review the geography, the day we were there, the people who were crossing the border, who were wading through the Rio Grande, were young Venezuelan men. Just to review the geography, I doubt they swam from Venezuela up the Rio Grande, which means they had to come by land and had to pass through all the countries of Central America and then Mexico to get to the United States. They were claiming asylum, or they could have been paroled into the interior. I don't know. I don't know how Border Patrol handled them, but Border Patrol was not turning them back. They will tell you that most of the people who come claim asylum. They said it was like 80 percent of the people are claiming asylum. They know the magic words to say. They come to the border and say that they face some kind of persecution and threats of violence in their country and are claiming asylum. They will also tell you that a large number of those people are actually coming from Mexico. It is not the most now. Most are from Venezuela, but number two is Mexico. Picture this, Mr. Speaker. We have a trade agreement with Mexico. We have a peaceful border with Mexico--at least with the Mexican Government, not with the cartels. Yet, we are accepting people who are telling us they have to be here on asylum from our neighboring ally, Mexico. How ridiculous is that? There is no civil war going on in Mexico. There is none of that. Why in the world would we be taking asylum cases from Mexico? The Texas border people said that the problem is that Border Patrol-- and confirmed by Border Patrol--are instructed to process these people into the interior. Mr. Speaker, when those 6,000 people crossed the border, they took all the Border Patrol agents from 243 miles of border that the Eagle Pass-Del Rio sector is responsible for--they took them all into the 4 miles of that area around Eagle Pass, leaving 239 miles of Texas border wide open. The administration will tell you all the fentanyl is crossing at the ports of entry. Really? On a day when 239 miles are unpatrolled, you think that a few pounds of fentanyl worth millions of dollars that could kill tens of millions of people--you think that they are going to risk taking it through a port of entry when the border is wide open? It is not believable. This administration does not want to enforce the border. They don't care about 70,000 people dying from fentanyl every year and that number going up, not down. We can't stand for it anymore. The gentleman from Arizona is absolutely right. Our lever is funding. We ought to take advantage of that.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest threats to our national security is a woke military. Nothing exemplifies a woke military as much as the National Defense Authorization Act that is going to come before this body out of a Conference Report that allows transgender surgery to continue to be funded in the U.S. military. I can guarantee you that Russia and China aren't using their military dollars to pay for transgender surgery. Here in the United States, we are, and we will. If this House and the Senate passes the Conference Report, that will be the official U.S. policy. Madam Speaker, that is not defense of the Nation. That is a woke military that endangers our Nation's security.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6363, a bill that would keep the government operating while putting Congress on a path toward fiscal responsibility. We simply can't continue to pass large, bloated omnibus appropriations bills just before Christmas, and this bill is a new approach to break the cycle. Moody's changed the outlook of the Nation's debt on Friday to negative. Rising interest rates from Bidenomics, the sharp increase in public debt, and a lack of agreement on measures to reduce the public deficit led to that downgrade. This should be a wake-up call for all of us. This bill gives us time to complete our work in a fiscally responsible manner while working toward a more normal appropriations process. Additionally, I would specifically address concerns for funding of the WIC program. I have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle use scare tactics and a straw man that this bill does not provide enough funding for WIC and the States will have to have a wait list for participants. Nothing could be further from the absolute truth. Let me remind everyone that provisions in the first CR continue in this bill, so the Department of Agriculture has the authority to maintain WIC participation, period. If States need more money, they should ask USDA for funding, not start wait lists. USDA and OMB have the authority to work together to fully fund the program, and if they don't, it is 100 percent the fault of the Biden administration. It is shameful that advocacy groups and the Biden administration's team use such scare tactics when they know full well they have the ability to fully fund WIC for the duration of this continuing resolution. I thank Speaker Johnson for his leadership in restoring fiscal restraint and supporting a new approach to control spending. I also thank Chairwoman Granger for her leadership and dedication in moving the FY24 House appropriations bills forward. The world has taken notice of the unsustainable spending and debt which undermines our credibility as a world leader. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6363 to put us on the path to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut when she said we need to fund the SNS. That is the bottom line. Mr. Chair, you read the Constitution like I read it. National Defense is one of the things outlined for Congress in the Constitution. We don't have adequate defense stockpiles in the Strategic National Stockpile. Let's talk smallpox, for example. We had 200 million doses back in 2018. A lot of those have expired. The bottom line is that anthrax has a 30 percent mortality rate. We need a vaccine for every American, everyone living in the United States. It is that simple, because anthrax, Mr. Chair, is not something you have to develop in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. God knows they can develop dangerous weaponry. It can be stolen from somewhere and duplicated. It doesn't take a First World country to be an anthrax threat. Now with regard to the buildings at NIH, as I explained before, Mr. Chair, there is a $1.8 billion building slush fund over at HHS. They have accumulated $1.8 billion in what they call their nonrecurring expense fund. Mr. Chair, I will remind you, because of Bidenomics and a 5 percent interest rate, that is $90 million a year we are paying on interest on their slush fund. Mr. Chair, what I am proposing is we take the money out of NIH--and I will join with the gentlewoman from Connecticut in writing a letter to Secretary Becerra asking him to backfill that money from his slush fund. Enough with slush funds--$22 billion in Commerce, the Commodity Credit Corp, in USDA; $1.8 billion slush fund, nonrecurring expense fund in HHS. Mr. Chair, we can't afford it. We also can't afford to be without a Strategic National Stockpile. We need to make sure that we have the antimicrobials, that we have the vaccines in there that are necessary to protect against the next threat from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the last one. It takes money from the NIH buildings and facilities funds, which, under authorization of law, can be transferred back from HHS' nonrecurring expense fund and transfers $100 million of that to the Strategic National Stockpile. The Strategic National Stockpile is the only program dedicated to having civilian medical countermeasures on hand to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats that may occur on U.S. soil. From what we are seeing in Israel now to the current Marburg virus outbreak in Equatorial Guinea, these threats are real and growing. Again, according to the PHEMCE multiyear budget, in fiscal year 2024, the stockpile would need $1.96 billion, almost $2 billion, to meet current stockpiling needs. Yet, in the bill is less than $1 billion. The sharp increase that they feel is necessary--again, these are the experts in these countermeasures--is largely due to needed investment in the anthrax, Ebola, and smallpox portfolios. When we underfund that stockpile, then risky decisions have to be made. A prior annual review proposed reducing anthrax vaccine and antibiotic holdings. This amendment provides funds that will help meet the goals that have been identified by these experts. I appreciate the Appropriations Committee including my requested report language directing the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Readiness in coordination with the intelligence community to provide annual classified threat briefings to Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this amendment, which is vital to our national security, and I reserve the balance of my time.