Friends, Over the last several weeks, those watching saw that we came close to a “government shutdown.”  So, what does that really mean?  And, how did things play out in Washington, D.C. leading up to the September 30th deadline? Generally, a government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass the twelve appropriations bills required to fund the many different divisions, agencies, and programs of the federal government. If funding measures have not been passed by September 30th, the majority of government services are halted, and most federal employees are furloughed until the shutdown ends. Only the agencies and employees considered by the Executive Branch to be “essential” continue working uninterrupted – but unpaid – until the end of the shutdown. These include national security, law enforcement, emergency response, air traffic control, and some healthcare operations.  But, there is lots of discretion given to the Executive Branch to determine who is “essential.”  So, things like oil and gas permitting, inspections, FAA operations, and other functions of government affecting East Texans would likely have been deemed “non-essential.” Despite the common perception, government shutdowns do not actually save any money.  They generally cost taxpayers money, while allowing many furloughed employees to stay at home.  Delayed or canceled payments to government contractors, reduced consumer spending, and decreased confidence in the government’s ability to manage finances can also have negative impacts on economic stability. When studying the 2018-2019 shutdown, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that GDP was reduced by a total of $11 billion, including $3 billion that was never recovered after the shutdown ended. In 2019, a Republican led report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs found that shutdowns in 2013, 2018, and 2019 cost taxpayers a total of $4 billion. And this does not even address the problem of leaving our military service members, Border Patrol Agents, and others on the front lines of securing our country unpaid during a shutdown. My push throughout the appropriations process has been to get all twelve appropriations bills passed—a task that has only happened four times since 1977 and not at all since 1997.  We’ve already passed four appropriations bills, including State and Foreign Operations (which had not been passed since 2006).  As we got closer to the September 30th deadline, and it became clear that all twelve bills would not be passed in time, my position was clear:  I would not support any temporary spending measure unless it included (1) border security reforms and (2) deep spending cuts.  A nation without secure borders is not truly sovereign, and we have a responsibility to address this issue with urgency.  I also agreed that we needed a strategy for tackling the mandatory spending items that comprise more than 70% of our annual spending. On Friday, September 29th, the House voted on a short-term spending bill that met my requirements.  It would have made significant, long-term border security reforms, reduced spending by nearly 30% in the discretionary, non-Defense, non-Veteran parts of our budget, and it would have also established a bi-partisan and bi-cameral Commission to work towards a long-term solution on non-discretionary spending items  This proposal - led by Rep. Chip Roy, Rep. Scott Perry, and others - ultimately failed on the Floor; thus, weakening Republican negotiating power to get long-term border security measures in place. The failed bill on Friday led to a second “clean CR” proposal on Saturday, September 30th, that did not cut spending and did not include border security reforms.  To make matters worse, the Senate was trying to force its own proposal that would have included a large amount of funding for Ukraine.  Ultimately, the Republican Senators blocked that effort in the Senate and the House bill passed.  Despite its passage, because this Saturday's “clean CR” did not include strong border security measures, did not cut spending from last year’s levels, and did not take a step forward to work on mandatory spending, I could not support it.  So, I voted against it.  Nevertheless, funding our government is critical, and over these next 40 days, my colleagues and I must work to advance conservative priorities and put the well-being of the American people first – ensuring a functioning government that serves its citizens efficiently and responsibly. But first, we must pause to choose a new Speaker of the House.  And, that process will begin next week when we begin internal conference deliberations and ultimately vote on the House Floor.