Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4664, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2024. With this bill, House Republicans are enabling tax cheats, harming consumers, and inserting unacceptable right-wing policy riders. With the $1.1 million cut to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) budget in H.R. 4664, Republicans are once again protecting sophisticated tax cheats and greedy corporations over hard-working families. The Department of Treasury recently announced that, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS is pursuing back taxes owed from about 1,600 taxpayers with income over $1,000,000. The IRS has closed 100 of those cases and collected $122 million in back taxes. If Republicans were really serious about cutting down on our national debt, they wouldn't be gouging the budget of the agency responsible for ensuring everyone pays their fair share and follows the law. Additionally, the IRS needs to be fully funded to ensure that my constituents have their tax refunds processed quickly and aren't placed on indefinite holds when they call the agency. Democrats know that if the IRS budget is cut, it will only make it easier for tax cheats to skip out on paying their fair share. Republicans are also including drastic cuts to agencies designed to ensure the products we buy aren't harmful to our families. Since 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has worked with manufacturers to protect Americans from unsafe consumer products by issuing recalls, developing safety standards, and conducting research into product-related illness and injury. Republicans have cut the CPSC budget by over $13 million. Why would we limit the CPSC's ability to issue recalls on products that will harm our families? Instead, Congress should be encouraging CPSC to explore all allegations that appliances or other consumer products are unsafe to children and adults and should give the CPSC more, not fewer, resources for eliminating or mitigating the safety risks they uncover. My opposition to the bill is not solely due to the inadequate funding levels. This bill, like all of the Republican appropriations measures, embraces right-wing social policy fights that have no place in the bills that fund our government. H.R. 4664 would prohibit the IRS from developing a free tax filing software for all taxpayers, prohibits agencies from enforcing regulations to curb climate change, and prohibits federal employees from using their health insurance to make personal healthcare decisions. These provisions must be rejected. Mr. Chair, we are nine days away from a government shutdown. Instead of reevaluating their extreme 2024 funding bills and working to find a bipartisan path forward to fund the government beyond November 17th, House Republicans have once again moved forward with a bill that is so extreme that they can't even get members of their own party to vote for the bill on the House Floor. Republicans don't have the power to pass their own bad bill. H.R. 4664 joins two other appropriations bills in a purgatory of the Republicans' own making, with no chance of ever becoming law. I urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan fashion to cut through this Republican chaos and avoid a government shutdown.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to this censure resolution that seeks to punish Representative Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), who is the only Palestinian American Member of Congress, for using her Constitutionally protected right to free speech. Representative Tlaib was elected by her constituents to represent them in the U.S. House, and her voice and perspective are unique and valuable to our national debate. Members of Congress have the right to express their viewpoints and represent their constituents. Our constituents will hold us accountable for the job we do. What makes democracies like ours unique is that they allow free speech even when it is offensive, false, or shocking. I do not agree with everything that Congresswoman Tlaib has said, just as I do not agree with anything Congressman Brian Mast (FL-21) said in his remarks on the House Floor on November 1, 2023. Their First Amendment rights to free speech are still protected. Censure is a serious tool that should be reserved for holding Members of Congress accountable for unethical or criminal behavior, like committing assault or accepting bribes, or for specific categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, including direct threats against individuals, inciting treason or insurrection, or the use of aggressively insulting ``fighting words'' against another Member on the House Floor. Protecting speech is the only way to ensure debate among diverse viewpoints that is an essential ingredient in every true democracy. As my colleague and constitutional scholar Representative Jamie Raskin rightly pointed out, we are at a moment when democracy is under attack around the world, and that makes it even more vital that we remain vigilant about protecting free speech rights here at home. Mr Speaker, I voted against this censure, and will continue to defend our right to free speech to represent our constituents and voice our conscience as Representatives in this great democracy.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address my votes on bills passed through the House of Representatives under suspension of the Rules the week of October 30. 2023: H. Res. 559, H.R. 340, H.R. 3774, and H. Res. 798. I voted no on H. Res. 559 because it contained language that could insinuate U.S. support for potential military action against Iran at a moment when de-escalation is necessary. This legislation was overly broad, and without an opportunity for proper debate on the House Floor, this bill has the potential to give license to the United States to use any means, including military action, against Iran without Congressional approval. I voted no on H.R. 340, the Hamas International Financing Prevention Act, because it was intentionally amended to delay humanitarian aid to Gaza, where people are suffering without access to food, drinking water, fuel, and medical care. The United States has rightly designated Hamas as a terrorist organization since 1997--but holding Hamas accountable cannot come at the expense of Palestinian civilians living in Gaza, roughly 40 percent of which are under 14 years of age. This is dangerous, as civilians must be protected under international law. I voted no on H.R. 3774, the SHIP Act, because the bill contains overly broad language that would have serious impacts on the global economy and the U.S. economy as well. Sanctions are one of the most important and impactful diplomatic tools that we have in managing our relationships and security around the globe. The Executive Branch that administers them needs to be able to adjust and scale sanctions for them to be effective. The waiver within this bill provides the Executive with limited flexibility--rendering the waiver provision nearly unusable. I voted yes on H. Res. 798 condemning the support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations at institutions of higher education because every student deserves a safe environment in which to learn and live. This resolution fails to mention the concurrent rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate. It is a glaring omission not to include other protected classes. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the rise in the U.S., and hatred in all its forms is unacceptable and must not be tolerated anywhere. All people deserve safety and security, and the only sustainable path forward is one where international human rights and international law are at the forefront and democratic ideals are upheld. Peace must remain our utmost goal in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4821, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024. The overall 35 percent reduction to the top line of this bill is simply irresponsible. With this bill, House Republicans are endangering public health, damaging our public lands and natural resources, and are failing to address the existential threat of climate change. Communities in Minnesota and across our nation need reliable access to safe drinking water and clean air. The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with safeguarding the air we breathe and the water we drink, cleaning up harmful pollution, and responding to public health emergencies like the train derailment last February in East Palestine, Ohio, where the EPA is still overseeing the cleanup of toxic contamination today. This bill includes a crippling 39 percent cut to the EPA that will jeopardize our public health. H.R. 4821 eliminates funding for environmental justice grant programs. These programs are designed to ensure disadvantaged communities that have historically suffered from underinvestment have access to clean air and water and climate resilience solutions. Just this October, the EPA issued $3 million in environmental justice grants across the state of Minnesota to address environmental or public health issues and build a healthier future for all Minnesotans. These grants must be protected. Our public lands and natural resources must be protected not only for today, but for future generations. H.R 4821 threatens our public lands and critical watersheds throughout the nation, and specifically harms conservation efforts in Minnesota with harmful policy riders that would overturn two final decisions by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to protect the watershed that flows through the 1.1-million- acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This wilderness protects a priceless reserve of water so clean that you can drink directly from the lakes. We should not be using a funding bill to ignore settled scientific record and overturn final decisions on mineral leases and mining withdrawals. As Ranking Member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am intimately aware that the Department of Defense considers climate change to be a top national security issue. Why are House Republicans harming our country's ability to respond to this threat? The drastic cuts made in this bill will put us at a severe global disadvantage in responding to climate change and helping communities who are directly affected by it. Mr. Chair, instead of reevaluating their extreme 2024 funding bills and working to find a bipartisan path forward to fund the government beyond November 17th, House Republicans are moving forward with passing bills that have no chance of ever becoming law. With this bill, House Republicans are debilitating essential government agencies, jeopardizing our public lands and natural resources, and abandoning investments made by Democrats last Congress to address the threat of climate change. For all of these reasons, I must vote against H.R. 4821, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this legislation. The bill that the majority put before us today grossly underfunds the Department of the Interior. I will mention two areas: the Environmental Protection Agency and the arts and humanities. The ranking member listed the others. Once again, the cuts the Republicans made to the appropriation bill do not honor the funding levels that were negotiated by the White House and the Republican leadership in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. A promise was broken. Over 35 percent of the reduction to the top line of this bill is simply irresponsible. The bill claws back billions of dollars from the historic Inflation Reduction Act trying to plug up the holes created by the massive top line cuts. This will damage the ability of the United States to respond to climate change and help communities who are currently affected by it, and we are affected by climate change in all of our districts. As ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am very aware that the DOD considers climate change to be a top national security issue. Harming our country's ability to respond to this threat will put us at a severe global disadvantage. This bill's drastic cuts to the EPA and the Interior Department also affect the life, health, and safety of all Americans. It will increase risk to all people who rely on the EPA to safeguard their air and water, to clean up harmful pollution, test for chemicals in their products, and respond to emergencies. There is one small, bright note in this bill, and I thank the chair and the ranking member for continuing their work together to honor our trust and treaty obligations to our Native American brothers and sisters, but on the whole, the bill before us does not, in my opinion, reflect the serious commitment to meet the needs of our constituents. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Chair, I could come up with some tax cuts to repeal to pay for the things I am asking for.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the United States faces two immense national security crises at one time: Russia's illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine, and Israel's military response to the barbaric Hamas attacks on October 7. I commend President Biden for swiftly sending a comprehensive emergency funding request to Congress to address both crises. The President's request provides Ukraine with security assistance necessary to defend its democracy from Putin's invasion. The President also addresses the broad scope of the crisis in Israel and Gaza. Israel deserves security after the Hamas terrorists hunted down and attacked children and families in their own homes, and right now, innocent children and families in Gaza are in immediate danger and in desperate need of humanitarian aid. That is why it is unfortunate that a few fringe Republicans insisted on bringing this bill to the floor, a bill that President Biden says he will veto. Why? Mr. Speaker, more than 300 bipartisan House Members voted and supported Ukraine's fight for freedom along with the Senate and the President, yet this bill eliminates urgently needed funding for Ukraine, abandoning their democracy to Russian regression. This bill has no humanitarian aid for the Palestinians in Gaza who are suffering without access to food, water, and even safe shelter. Mr. Speaker, for the security of both the Palestinians and Israeli families, the violence must stop, and all hostages must be released. We must work with the United Nations and regional partners on a cease-fire that holds every party accountable. Until then, declared safe areas must be truly safe for civilians fleeing violence. Finally, this bill ignores the bipartisan precedent of emergency appropriation bills without an offset, and theirs is no offset. In fact, the CBO says this bill would add to the deficit, cutting enforcement for tax evasion. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this is another policy rider designed to block the EPA from doing its work to protect our air, our water, and public health. I know my constituents. They look to me to make good decisions because they want to have clean water to drink, to cook, and to bathe in, and the EPA working alongside the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ensures that we have the best water quality standards around. So, Madam Chair, on behalf of the Fourth District of Minnesota, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, ecosystems are in distress, and they are declining globally at rates we couldn't even have imagined. Human history will have more than 1 million species directly currently threatened with extinction within many decades. It will happen within some of our lifetimes. This amendment seeks to legislate species rather than providing species with the protections that are afforded under the Endangered Species Act. The species live somewhere. The Endangered Species Act protects the habitat. Madam Chair, think of the bald eagle and what we did to protect that, and how proud we all are of what we did to protect that. Those were other Members of Congress. Now we have the responsibility to do the same thing for the next generation. This law would also potentially increase litigation regarding the government's responsibility to implement the statutory requirements under the Endangered Species Act. So that means more litigation and more taxpayers' dollars spent in litigation. The best available science and commercial information, not politics, should determine whether a species is listed, threatened, or endangered. This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is put in place to make those scientific determinations as well as the role of public input. There is public input that goes into this. The primary factor influencing the viability of the Texas kangaroo rat is loss of its habitat largely related to historical land use changes. Human activities threaten to diminish animal habitats. They pollute nature. They accelerate global warming which is driving species to extinction and creating more unhealthy ecosystems. When we lose a species it impacts and reverberates throughout our ecosystem and we all suffer because our economy, our public health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend upon ecosystems working together. Defunding the service's ability to list a species would work against the clear intent of the Endangered Species Act and would, as I said before, cause more litigation by outside groups, not less, but more litigation costing taxpayers more money. Most importantly, Madam Chair, it would also undercut the service's ability to work collaboratively with Tribes who seek help on ecosystem protection, other Federal agencies, States, and local communities, and landowners who wish and want to work cooperatively to conserve species. So, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to protect vulnerable species so that future generations can benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity just as previous generations did for us, and the best example is the American bald eagle. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this is just another more controversial poison pill rider that sadly shows some of the extremes that Republicans will go to. Now, we need to be interested in laws that can gain bipartisan support and become law because people want us to work together and move forward. The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement that was reached by Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were memorialized in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. I voted for that in good faith and thought we, as a Congress, were going to honor that commitment to those spending levels. Now that I have said that, I want to get back to the amendment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted a proposed draft resource management plan, an environmental impact statement that is currently open for a 90-day comment period. The public has been asked to comment. Your constituents can comment, and we have asked them to do that. This amendment would prohibit the BLM from providing an updated, comprehensive, and environmentally adequate framework for managing the uses of its public lands and resources. We are here to protect the overall welfare of the American public and to preserve our lands and resources for future generations. Unfortunately, this would be disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update the management plans to better address larger, higher intensity wildland fires, for example, something I know the gentleman and I have both worked on and both agree that we need to do so much more on to protect our public lands from wildland fires and private lands from it as well. This amendment nullifies that public comment I was talking about before, 90 days public comment. We have invited the public in to make comments. We are currently collecting them. This amendment would say, you know, we asked you to comment, but we are just going to totally disregard it. We are not going to even look at it. I believe we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change we are experiencing. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems and so does reducing and suppressing wildland fires, for example. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on work we can do together to address climate change and together being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I know the gentleman doesn't see it this way, but I see this amendment as petty and punitive--the EPA and environmental justice. I live in a corridor, it is called I-94, and there was a thriving African-American community there. Absolutely thriving--undertakers, dentists, doctors, dry cleaners, grocery stores. It was an amazing place. However, it was the place of the least political resistance to put a highway through rather than over by the cathedral, which got a different speed limit and some other things that happened, or the mansions on Summit Avenue hill just a couple blocks away. Snelling Avenue in my district has some of the worst air quality for the homes that are located around there because of the freeway. I can give example after example, and I just used transportation, but I can use other things. I grew up in South St. Paul, a river town with a meatpacking plant. Swift Armour could just throw their waste right into the Mississippi River. The State of Wisconsin sued us not only for that waste but for the waste of our municipal waste plant that was there. That was in the poorest neighborhood around between Dakota and Washington County. You can say it is about race, but it is about people who were taken advantage of because it was the most expedient thing to do. Now the Biden administration and other administrations have said, you know what, we have a responsibility to clean that up. We have a responsibility to do better, and that is a role that the environmental pollution control agency should be involved in because the water, the air, and the soil in many of these places is not anyplace where we would make an investment or where you would want to buy something. I understand the gentleman has his viewpoint on what is going on. I just want you to hear from myself and on behalf of my constituents who are working to rectify a wrong. We are doing it in a positive way that moves forward; that is not dividing our communities, but it is uniting our communities. I don't think when we are mad at something or a policy that we should be going after individual public servants. I would like to move forward, Madam Chair, and negotiate with the Senate a bill to fund the government and to move the EPA forward so we have clean air, clean water, and we protect our soil. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I am a little confused. I serve on this committee, and one of the debates that we had when we were doing the markup--and the Chair probably remembers--is how, in the base bill, all the money that he is talking about was stripped out. It is gone. We couldn't find offsets to put it back in, but it is gone. The money that the gentleman is referring to is gone. Madam Chair, $1.4 billion was taken from EJ in the Inflation Reduction Act. It was taken away, so it is gone. However, just getting into what we tried to do, Democrats did try to make historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has been able to put some of those dollars to use. As I said, there is no EJ funding. There is zero in the base bill. It is unfortunate because I think environmental justice, as I said earlier, makes sure that everybody gets the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards. Our rural communities and the community that I grew up in, which is an older suburb but at the time was very rural, were targeted by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning boards because the land was cheap and had been polluted. Then, they just kept siting more pollution around it like landfills or a waste transfer station. They thought it was a good place to put an incinerator, a garbage dump. The amount of concentration of pollution in some of these areas is really mind-boggling because the mindset is that because it is already polluted, we can just put a little more there. I know my colleague mentioned that he is a doctor, so I know he knows that when someone is exposed to a lot of chemicals, when someone is exposed to a lot of toxins, they have higher health disparities and shorter lifespans. That is all documented. In these populations, there are higher cancer rates. As I said, the money is gone, unfortunately. I hope we can work with the Senate to put some things back, but I want my colleagues to just think for a minute that some of these communities started out with one waste facility or one toxic plant and then another one and another one and another one came. House values went down, and pretty soon, no one wanted to live there. In my case, in my community, it was right on the Mississippi River. Like I said, I am a little confused by talking about the funding in this bill that no longer exists, and I am going to reserve the balance of my time because I think, Madam Chair, Members of this House know how I feel about this. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, here we go again. We are attacking the salary of a person who is doing their job, Mr. Li. Mr. Li has a really important job. Mr. Li's job is to regulate pesticides. Pesticides can be toxic. One of the things that got me involved in politics back when I served on the natural resources and agriculture subcommittee in the State of Minnesota was all the reading that we were doing about the accumulation of pesticides on food that children were ingesting because all the studies had been done for pesticides on an adult healthy male and how it could affect their development. The more I learned about pesticides--and they are important. They are an important tool for our agriculture. We feed the world. We feed our folks here. If a pesticide isn't regulated--and I don't have the names right in front of me. Madam Chair, I will get them submitted for the record. Some of them are water-soluble. We learned a lot about how pesticide companies would come in and target local farmers to have them use this pesticide, saying it was great, but it didn't break down in water. It would get into well water. It would get into streams. It would do terrible things to the ecosystem and streams. In Minnesota, our farmers didn't want that, but they weren't scientists on a lot of that, so who do they turn to? They turned to scientific experts to do the due diligence, to check these pesticides out so when and if they are used, they are used properly so they do no harm. They only do good. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to support the EPA in its work to protect our public health and environment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. We are now only 15 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere. The draconian cuts that I talked about earlier in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were memorialized in statute and Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had upheld their end of the bargain and funded at the levels we had agreed to and there was a vote that I did take in this body, so I feel I had a vested interest in thinking that we were going to honor that agreement. We are here to protect the welfare of the American people, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, drought, flooding, severe storms, wildfires events that we are experiencing. As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record. I could talk about the money that the Department of Defense, in the billions of dollars, is having to spend to make buildings resilient and to try to prevent buildings from collapsing due to these extreme weather events. The Department of Defense sees climate change--the Department of Defense sees climate change, I want to stress this--as a national security issue. The Department of Defense invests in solar, and the EPA should not walk away from it. When we have solar available, it is something that is a strategy that will help us in preventing the acceleration of climate change, instead of paying billions of dollars in disaster relief. I don't think that is what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, our food security, our quality of life all depend on how the planet is a healthy ecosystem and doing what we can to mitigate climate change. I state again that we have been working to bring wind and solar and bring the costs down, and many States, including Texas, are embracing a lot of this, and a lot of small businesses are coming forward. I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I don't want to be purchasing solar panels from China. I want to manufacture them right here in the United States as part of a full energy embrace mix. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change, making our Nation stronger, and agreeing with the Department of Defense that climate change is a national security issue. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4364, the Republican FY24 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill provides the funding that all of our offices rely on for the resources we need to serve our constituents and legislate for the good of the nation. It funds our Capitol Police, Sergeant at Arms, and Architect of the Capitol to keep the Capitol complex safe, secure, and functioning for staff and visitors. It supports the research and preservation work at the Library of Congress and the beloved Botanic Garden. I am disappointed that the bill before us today stalls the progress that we made under a Democratic majority in recent years by not investing enough in the resources needed to operate Congress as a modern, effective, and co-equal branch of our democratic government. My opposition to the bill is not solely due to the inadequate funding levels. This bill, like all of the Republican appropriations measures, embraces right-wing social policy fights that have no place in the bills that fund our government. It eliminates direct funding for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and prohibits funding from being used to train staff and improve the diversity, equity, and inclusion of the Congressional workplace. It does not include the language that allows the legislative branch to employ Americans certified under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It creates a license to blatantly discriminate against LGBTQI+ people under the guise of religious liberty and face no penalties for that blatant discrimination. The People's House should be a place where all people of this diverse nation are welcomed, included, and treated equitably. Instead, this bill advances an agenda that is hurtful to many of the staff that work here and the constituents we represent. Mr. Speaker, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. We may have a new Speaker in this chamber, but Republicans are still pursuing the same partisan path on appropriations bills. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.