[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 211 (Tuesday, December 7, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H6920-H6925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5314, PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY ACT; 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1605, NATIONAL PULSE MEMORIAL; AND 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 610, DR. LORNA BREEN HEALTH CARE 
                        PROVIDER PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 838 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 838

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5314) to 
     protect our democracy by preventing abuses of presidential

[[Page H6921]]

     power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and 
     transparency in government, and defending elections against 
     foreign interference, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 117-20, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 Oversight and Reform or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or her 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further 
     amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed 
     of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or 
     their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1605) to 
     designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South 
     Orange Avenue in Orlando, Florida, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-21 shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 Armed Services or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 6.  The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than December 
     10, 2021, such material as he may deem explanatory of S. 
     1605.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 610) to address 
     behavioral health and well-being among health care 
     professionals. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-22 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further 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 Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 8. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Thursday, December 9, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of November 30, 2021, December 1, 
     2021, or December 8, 2021, in the form as so offered, on 
     which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings 
     postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule, House Resolution 838, providing for consideration of H.R. 5314, 
the Protecting Our Democracy Act, under a structured rule. It provides 
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It 
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Maloney and makes 
in order 34 amendments. It also provides en bloc authority to 
Chairwoman Maloney and one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of S. 1605, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, under a closed rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It 
provides authority for the chair of the Armed Services Committee to 
insert into the Record explanatory materials through December 10 and 
provides for one motion to commit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of S. 610, the Protecting 
Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, under a closed 
rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and provides for one motion to commit.
  Finally, the rule provides the majority leader the ability to en bloc 
requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through December 
9, 2021.
  Mr. Speaker, ever since the founding of our great Nation, we have 
debated how to appropriately check and balance the various branches of 
our government with a primary concern, dating back to the 1700s, being 
how to prevent abuses of executive power and how to address such abuses 
when they occur.
  In the 1970s, Congress passed a variety of reforms in response to 
abuses of the Nixon administration to address the imbalance between 
Congress and the President--laws like the War Powers Act, the Inspector 
General Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Impoundment Control 
Act.
  Now, just like then, Congress must pass additional reforms to protect 
against Presidential impunity and reset the dysfunctional relationship 
between the branches of government.
  Many Americans did not realize that we didn't already have laws to 
prevent the kinds of abuses we saw during the Trump administration. 
They thought that our laws required the disclosure of tax returns by 
Presidential candidates and the avoidance of financial conflicts, 
particularly from foreign nations, and that our laws prevented the use 
of pardons to protect political allies from criminal liability.
  In a country founded by men for whom public service to promote the 
common good was the highest calling, we have long expected our elected 
leaders to adhere to ethical standards that far exceed minimal 
legality, and for the most part, they have. People didn't realize that 
a wayward President might have a dangerously wide berth to avoid legal 
and ethical guardrails, subvert the other branches of government, and 
escape accountability for doing so.
  They were surprised that the former President and his administration 
would offer pardons in return for political favors, illegally repurpose 
taxpayer dollars, violate the Hatch Act, or remove inspectors general 
when they investigated executive misconduct.
  They were surprised that the former President would politically 
interfere in

[[Page H6922]]

Federal law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, order Federal 
agents to violently disperse peaceful protesters, or use his office to 
direct business to properties that he owned and profited from.
  This is no way for a democracy to function. When a President, any 
President, abuses the power of their office, we all suffer, and our 
democracy is weakened. We often hear that the United States is a nation 
of laws, not men, but so long as those laws are enforced by men, we 
need a functional system of oversight and accountability to prevent 
lawlessness, graft, nepotism, crony dealings, and abuses of 
Presidential power.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act focuses on three major areas of 
reform: limiting abuses of Presidential power; improving 
accountability, transparency, and the system of checks and balances; 
and protecting against foreign interference in our Nation's elections.
  Former President Trump and his administration made it abundantly 
clear that the functioning of our democratic institutions had become 
too dependent on the good behavior of good people and that our 
government was vulnerable to the dangers posed by people in positions 
of power who might value their own political or financial interests 
more than public service or the common good.
  These are not esoteric concerns. Just last week at a townhall, 
several of my constituents asked sharp questions about the failure to 
hold anyone accountable--so far--for inciting the January 6 attack on 
the U.S. Capitol, the misuse of government funds intended for COVID 
relief, and the measures necessary to hold people in contempt when they 
defy congressional subpoenas.
  While the Trump administration may have ended, our democratic 
institutions are still vulnerable to future Presidents who try to 
commit the same crimes, abuses of power, and other improper actions.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act is the culmination of years of work 
by dozens of bipartisan Members and nine congressional committees to 
institute reforms to protect our democracy and rebalance the 
relationship between Congress and the President.

  For decades, Congress has ceded many administrative and oversight 
responsibilities to the executive branch. Congress is granted broad 
powers in Article I of the Constitution, but over time, many of these 
powers have been weakened or absorbed by the Presidency.
  This has been a long and slow process with Presidents of both parties 
over the past 50 years taking advantage of the broken system of checks 
and balances to expand Presidential power. But it has become 
increasingly clear, particularly so over the last administration, that 
this problem has dangerous consequences.
  To protect against abuses of Presidential power, the Protect Our 
Democracy Act prevents Presidents from pardoning themselves and updates 
Federal bribery laws to prevent quid pro quo pardons. The Protect Our 
Democracy Act suspends the statute of limitations so that Presidents 
cannot escape accountability for crimes committed before or during 
their terms in office. And this act would allow Congress to enforce the 
Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, preventing future Presidents 
from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments or others who 
seek to influence Presidential actions.
  To improve transparency and accountability, this act makes a series 
of necessary reforms to bolster the enforcement of congressional 
subpoenas. Presidents have increasingly used a variety of legal methods 
to stall or obstruct congressional investigations, and these issues 
came to a head during the Trump administration where the executive 
branch refused to turn over information to Congress for so long that 
the administration ended before Congress could obtain that information. 
Congress needs to be able to promptly and effectively conduct oversight 
in order to fulfill its constitutional role as a check and balance to a 
rogue administration.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act's reforms will give Congress 
important legal remedies to ensure that the recipients of congressional 
subpoenas actually comply with them in a timely manner. It will place 
important limits on presidentially declared emergencies so that 
Presidents cannot indefinitely maintain emergency powers.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act will additionally prevent the 
President from illegally diverting or spending taxpayer dollars. It 
will prevent Presidents from dismissing inspectors general when they 
conduct investigations that disclose misconduct by an administration.

                              {time}  1730

  Importantly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act will reinforce measures 
to prevent the White House from trying to interfere in Federal law 
enforcement for political reasons.
  Lastly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act includes policies to protect 
our Federal elections from foreign interference. Since 2016, numerous 
foreign governments have gone to great lengths to interfere in our 
elections and manipulate American public opinion.
  Building on the reforms passed by the House as part of H.R. 1, the 
For the People Act, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would require 
campaigns to affirmatively report any contact with a foreign government 
or its agents, expressly prohibit those contacts, and strengthen 
criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the 
prohibitions.
  All in all, the reforms in the Protecting Our Democracy Act will 
establish essential guardrails to protect our democratic institutions 
from illegal and unethical behavior by a President or his or her 
administration. These reforms are long overdue, and I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support this bill when it is considered on 
the floor.
  However, I do want to note to my colleagues that while the Protecting 
Our Democracy Act can address many of the abuses of the recent 
administration, and prevent them in the future, ultimately, the 
responsibility for holding the executive accountable falls to Congress.
  Under our Constitution, Congress plays an equal role in the 
functioning of our government. Through our powers to authorize and 
appropriate funds, conduct oversight, pass laws, structure government 
agencies, and grant executive authority, under Article I, the first 
article of the Constitution, Congress has the ability to limit 
Presidential power and punish Presidents who break the law, violate 
norms, or act in ways to undermine our constitutional order. And we all 
must have the courage to exercise that power.
  So while it is true that Congress has ceded many of its Article I 
powers, the responsibility to get them back falls entirely on us. We 
cannot count on an executive, of any party, to relinquish powers that 
we have given away. Whether it is war powers, emergency powers, or the 
enforcement of subpoenas, ethical norms, and criminal penalties, it 
falls on Congress to pass legislation to resolve these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the 
fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. I applaud the work 
of my House colleagues to consider and pass the NDAA in a timely 
fashion, and I regret that the Senate has once again held up 
congressional business.
  This year's NDAA makes important and necessary improvements to our 
national security policies, ensuring that the United States is able to 
appropriately respond to ongoing and emerging threats.
  The NDAA will provide the resources to combat aggression and malign 
activity by Russia and China; it will strengthen our security relations 
with important allies in Europe and Asia; and it will continue vital 
modernization and acquisition programs.
  The NDAA includes important policies for my district, including 
funding for five Block II Chinook helicopters and nine more V-22 
Ospreys, all of which are manufactured in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. 
The 4,500 men and women who build these incredible aircraft are 
immensely proud that their hard work directly supports our national 
security and disaster relief efforts around the world, and the fiscal 
year 2022 NDAA is an investment in these amazing workers.
  The NDAA also includes funding for the fifth of five National 
Security Multi-Mission Vessels which are being built at the 
Philadelphia shipyard, the

[[Page H6923]]

birthplace of the United States Navy. These are training ships for our 
nation's maritime academies which are needed to train the next 
generation of mariners as we experience growing shortages to that 
workforce. This program has already created hundreds of jobs in my 
district and throughout our region, and it will create hundreds more as 
work continues.
  These training vessels are critical to our national commerce, our 
national defense, and our regional economy. This Friday, I am looking 
forward to attending the keel laying ceremony for the first of these 
vessels at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
  I want to highlight, as well, the important reforms that the NDAA 
finally makes to the way the military handles cases of sexual assault. 
Thanks to years of work by advocates and members of the House and 
Senate Armed Services Committees, the NDAA will remove special victims 
crimes from the chain of command and create an Office of the Special 
Victim Prosecutor within each service that is independent from the 
military justice system.
  These reforms will ensure that allegations of sexual assault get an 
independent investigation with experienced criminal justice attorneys, 
allowing our servicemembers to seek justice without the pressures and 
obfuscation that keep these crimes in the shadows. While I believe that 
a lot more can and should be done to address sexual assault in the 
Armed Forces, the FY 2022 NDAA makes much-needed progress.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule will provide a process for 
expedited consideration in the Senate of legislation to raise the 
Nation's debt limit. Congressional Republicans have held the country 
hostage for nearly 4 months, threatening to derail our economy, and the 
world's economy, as part of a fiscally irresponsible political stunt.
  Again, it is incredibly irresponsible for Members of Congress to 
support fiscal policies that require the Treasury to borrow and then to 
prevent the Treasury from doing so. We must raise the debt limit, and 
we must be responsible stewards of the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
  It has been said multiple times but bears repeating: Raising the debt 
limit is necessary to allow the Treasury to pay the bills our country 
has already incurred. It has nothing to do with the national debt. The 
United States cannot default on its bills without creating a global 
financial crisis and inflicting serious financial harm on our country 
and its inhabitants.

  It is grossly irresponsible for any Member of this Congress to 
deliberately court financial disaster by nonpayment of our debts, and 
particularly to do so for partisan political purposes.
  I look forward to legislative action in the future to permanently 
lift the debt limit and to permanently remove this political football 
from the Halls of Congress. I am glad that both Chambers of Congress 
have come to an agreement on the path forward to raising the debt limit 
for the present so that we can end the economic anxiety caused by this 
arbitrary and functionally useless budget provision.
  In addition to the debt limit provision, the rule includes important 
budgetary provisions to protect funding from Medicare and other 
important Federal programs as our Nation continues our robust recovery 
from last year's recession, and to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, covers three items. I will begin my 
remarks on a bipartisan note with the House amendment to S. 1605, the 
vehicle for the agreement between the House and the Senate for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
  It has been a long road to get us to this point, Mr. Speaker, but 
with this week's action, the House and Senate are poised to enact the 
NDAA for the 61st consecutive year. This is quite an accomplishment, 
and one that could not have been possible but for the bipartisan 
cooperation in the House and the Senate.
  It didn't always look promising. At the beginning of the process, 
President Biden proposed a defense budget that would deeply underfund 
our national defense. Chronic underfunding of defense was the hallmark 
of the Obama-Biden administration, a trend that was thankfully reversed 
by President Trump and a Republican Congress.
  With his first budget, President Biden appeared poised to return to 
the previous sorry state of affairs. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of 
legislators on the Armed Services Committee rejected this approach, 
ensuring an increase in defense funding that would be sufficient to 
meet the country's needs. This increase garnered overwhelming 
bipartisan support in the committee, allowing the NDAA to be reported 
out on a 57-2 vote, and extending to final passage out of the House, 
with a bipartisan 316-113 vote.
  At a glance, it is easy to see why. The United States and our allies 
face significant threats around the globe. We see this every day in 
trouble spots around the world, ranging from the Middle East, to 
Afghanistan, to the Taiwan Strait. Between Russian adventurism in 
Eastern Europe, Chinese development of new hypersonic missiles and 
saber rattling against Taiwan, and the ongoing threat posed by 
extremist terror organizations like al-Qaida and the Islamic State, 
this is not the time to underfund our national defense.
  Fortunately, the 2022 NDAA will adequately fund our defense needs and 
set clear priorities for our Armed Forces. The bill before us funds 
continued acquisition of ships to ensure the United States Navy can 
meet its mission. It funds the procurement and development of new 
weapons systems, which ensures that our military will be prepared to 
meet new and emerging challenges in the coming years. It provides our 
servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay raise.
  And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions 
designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled 
withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about decisions 
that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that occurred 
at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that they will 
get them.
  Our second item is the House amendment to S. 610, which addresses 
Medicare sequestration. While most of the Members on both sides of the 
aisle would agree that a resolution of this problem is necessary, I 
fear today's bill is a missed opportunity for bipartisanship.
  Rather than pursuing a clean, bipartisan deal, we have a bill which 
includes provisions addressing the debt ceiling and delaying the paygo 
cuts from the majority's partisan reconciliation bill earlier this 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Democrats passed a measure to increase the 
debt ceiling, leading us to the deadline we face today. At that time, 
Republicans told Democrats two things which I think bear repeating. 
First, Democrats needed to step back from their massive partisan 
spending priorities. And second, they needed to work with the 
Republicans on solutions to our ever-increasing, structurally 
imbalanced debt.
  Instead, Democrats have doubled down on their spending habits without 
using reconciliation to address the debt ceiling. Earlier this year, 
the majority passed a $1.9 trillion reconciliation bill with only 
Democratic votes. Last month, the House passed another partisan 
reconciliation bill, with only Democratic votes, which may ultimately 
cost us as much as $4.5 trillion.
  Even if you take the Democrats at their word and accept their claim 
that these measures are fully paid for, all the new revenues this 
legislation claims to raise do nothing to address the existing $29 
trillion national debt. They just go to new programs overwhelmingly 
designed to benefit the wealthy and liberal special interests.
  Both of these measures are larded up with more spending, more 
taxation, and more Big Government control over the lives of everyday 
Americans. And these measures come on top of normal Federal spending 
and on top of the trillions of dollars appropriated last year and 
earlier this year to address the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent 
economic crisis.
  After continuing to spend money in such a reckless and partisan 
manner, it is deeply disappointing that the Democratic leadership in 
the House and Senate waited until now to address the

[[Page H6924]]

debt ceiling. Waiting until this point has placed the House in an 
awkward position, resulting in today's unfortunate bill.

  Additionally, the paygo cuts due to be implemented next month, due 
mostly to the Democrats' first reconciliation bill, are not addressed. 
Instead, they are delayed until the end of 2022, setting up an even 
bigger crisis at that time.
  Finally, the House is also considering H.R. 5314, which the majority 
is calling the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This is a package of 
purported reforms relating to Presidential power and foreign 
interference in elections. But the reality is that this package is an 
attempt by the majority to write into law supposed solutions to every 
complaint they ever had about the previous President.
  The best thing I can say about this package is that it is 
duplicative. Many of the provisions included in this package have 
already passed the House as part of the majority's previous purported 
reform packages, notably including H.R. 1.
  But not content with having passed these partisan provisions 
previously, the majority is pushing ahead with today's package. This is 
such a waste of time for this institution. At a time when the American 
people are deeply concerned about inflation and the weak economy, and 
when we are seeing the consequences of President Biden's weak 
leadership, both domestically and abroad, the majority is once again 
wasting time by talking about the last administration. I can think of 
countless other ways we could and should be spending our time that 
would be more productive and would deliver better results for our 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry state of affairs. I continue to hope 
that the majority will shift its focus back to where it should be. 
Governing in a deeply partisan manner may be satisfying to their base, 
but it is hardly productive for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Committee 
on Rules.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding and for her leadership on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, there are lots of good things in this rule, such as the 
Protect Our Democracy Act, and everybody should vote for it. There are 
lots of amendments to that bill that are included in this rule. We move 
forward with the doc fix, and we put in this rule a procedure that will 
allow the Senate to consider the debt ceiling issue.
  I should clarify this, because during the Rules Committee meeting 
today, I think some of my Republican friends who testified started to 
believe the Republican talking points that somehow this was 
automatically increasing the debt ceiling. It isn't. It puts in place a 
process that was negotiated by Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell, a 
Democrat and a Republican, that would allow the Senate to deal with the 
issue. When they deal with it and pass it, we will then have to deal 
with it and pass it here in the House. So I want to be clear on that.
  The bill also includes the fiscal year 2022 National Defense 
Authorization Act, which was negotiated between the House and Senate. 
It is a bill, in my opinion, that spends far too much on military 
matters, and I have some problems with that. But I will say this: 
Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers did an incredible job of 
trying to piece together a bill that would get a majority in the House 
and a majority in the Senate.
  I want to speak about one provision in particular that is missing. 
The House version of the NDAA that passed with broad bipartisan support 
last September in the House had some good things in it, including 
section 6470, which included my provision that reauthorizes Global 
Magnitsky sanctions and makes them more effective by adding a provision 
from Executive Order No. 13818, which was actually issued by former 
President Trump.
  Briefly, the NDAA provision codifies the Global Magnitsky sanctions 
as they have been applied over the last 5 years. We need to reauthorize 
the Global Magnitsky sanctions because when they became law in 2016, a 
sunset was added.
  Since 2016, Global Magnitsky sanctions have had strong bipartisan 
support and have proven to be one of our most powerful foreign policy 
tools. They have been imposed on more than 300 human rights abusers and 
corrupt actors in nearly 40 countries around the world.
  Human rights groups, civil society organizations, and victims' 
organizations overwhelmingly support them.
  The number one request we hear from threatened human rights defenders 
is that the U.S. impose Global Magnitsky sanctions on government 
perpetrators, on the individuals, and on the institutions responsible 
for heinous human rights atrocities.
  In 2020, Global Magnitsky sanctions were imposed on Chinese officials 
for abusing Uighurs in China. Who opposes that? Well, apparently there 
are a handful of Republicans here in House that oppose it because they 
are the ones who are responsible for blocking the Global Magnitsky 
provisions from the final NDAA agreement.
  These are the same people who are happy to talk about human rights 
and how important human rights are, and then they issue press releases 
and call for sanctions when there is a human rights atrocity that they 
want to be involved in. But when it comes to making sure that the U.S. 
Government can maintain the tools it needs to advance human rights, 
they just said no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, shame on those who derailed this in the 
negotiations between the House and Senate.
  It is not enough to issue press releases. We need to take action.
  Mr. Speaker, mark my words, we will reauthorize and we will 
strengthen Global Magnitsky in this Congress. We will do so hand-in-
hand with allies on both sides of the aisle in the House and in the 
Senate, because at the end of the day, it is important that we just 
don't talk the talk, that we walk the walk. I can't believe that this 
important provision was derailed by a small group in this House.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to immediately bring up H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our Communities 
From Gang Violence Act of 2021. This bill would make alien gang members 
inadmissible to the United States and deportable. It would also 
authorize revoking the citizenship of certain naturalized individuals 
who are members of a criminal gang, and it would ensure that 
individuals associated with criminal gangs are ineligible for asylum or 
temporary protected status.
  Mr. Speaker, gang violence continues to be a scourge on American 
communities, threatening the lives and livelihoods of ordinary, 
hardworking Americans. Certain gangs, like MS-13, operate 
internationally, bringing violence from overseas to the United States. 
If enacted, H.R. 1995 would ensure the Federal Government has an 
appropriate response to gang members and wrongdoers who seek to enter 
the United States or who have taken advantage of our broken immigration 
system to cause chaos in our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a fellow appropriator and former sheriff, to 
further explain the previous question.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for 
this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we 
can immediately consider H.R. 1995, a bill to keep alien gang members 
from entering the United States.

[[Page H6925]]

  The crisis at the southern border continues to rage, with over 
160,000 illegal aliens pouring into the country every single month.
  In fiscal year 2021, a record-breaking 1.7 million illegal aliens 
crossed our southern border, and that is only those who were caught. 
How many others avoided authorities and successfully entered into our 
country illegally?
  Mr. Speaker, we know cartels are sending gang members across our 
border and into our communities. I can tell you--and as a former 
sheriff, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker--these gang members, these alien 
gang members, are bringing violence and drugs, and they are straining 
police resources in cities all across America. In fact, violent crime 
skyrocketed in many cities last year, and much of that was tied to gang 
violence.
  I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can agree 
that alien gang members should not be allowed into the United States. A 
``no'' vote on the previous question sends a message to those looking 
to bring crime and violence into our country that they are not welcome 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of my children, for the sake of your 
children, for the sake of our children, I would ask all of my 
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and stop these illegal alien gang members.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding and for her outstanding work on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 5314, the 
Protecting Our Democracy Act.
  This sweeping package of reforms, many of which have been supported 
by Democrats and Republicans in the past, will protect our government 
from future abuses, restore the government's system of checks and 
balances, and strengthen our accountability and transparency.
  The Committee on Oversight and Reform has jurisdiction over several 
titles in this landmark legislation, and I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of this bill.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act includes the Inspector General 
Independence Act, which I introduced last year with Majority Leader 
Steny Hoyer and several other members of the Committee on Oversight and 
Reform.
  The bill would strengthen protections for inspectors general by only 
allowing an IG to be removed for specific, documented causes and not 
for political retaliation, for doing their jobs and conducting 
oversight.
  The bill also includes my Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, a 
bipartisan bill the Committee on Oversight and Reform approved earlier 
this year. These provisions would strengthen protections for 
whistleblowers by protecting their anonymity and prohibiting 
retaliation when they come forward with abuses in government.
  The Protecting Our Democracy Act would strengthen the Hatch Act, 
which is intended to protect the government from political interference 
with our workforce.
  Last month, the independent Office of Special Counsel found that 
senior officials in the last administration repeatedly broke the law by 
using their government positions to campaign for the former President.
  The bill also includes Representative Katie Porter's bill, the 
Accountability for Acting Officials Act, which would limit who can be 
named an acting official and for how long. These reforms would close 
loopholes that are ripe for abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this important bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, a former police officer, and a 
member of the Law Enforcement Caucus, to provide further information 
about the previous question.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so 
that we can immediately consider H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our 
Communities from Gang Violence Act.
  Crime is running rampant in our cities. Smash and grab is the new 
normal for malls and small business owners. Carjackings are happening 
with such frequency that it is now recommended that you drive in the 
center lane of roads and highways. What once were beloved destinations 
in our States and our communities have become overrun with street gangs 
and violent criminals across this great Nation.
  Now, President Biden is helping bring that crime to every suburban 
and rural community in America. As we speak, the Biden administration 
is using taxpayer dollars to fly and transport illegal immigrants 
across this country. This is without knowledge of who these people are 
or their criminal background.
  Now, violent gang members have been illegally entering our country 
and circumventing our laws well before the Biden administration 
implemented their weak border policies. But it is gravely naive to 
think these gang members are not taking full advantage of this crisis, 
crossing the border with ease, hopping on these taxpayer-funded 
flights, and making their way into every small town across this great 
Nation. The Biden administration is, without a doubt, providing gang 
members new playgrounds for their criminal behavior. This is 
unacceptable in our great Nation.
  As Members of Congress, we cannot sit idly by and allow our 
communities to be infiltrated by gang members and exposed to violence.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1995 is simple. It will make gang members 
inadmissible to and deportable from the United States of America. This 
legislation should be noncontroversial. Violent and dangerous criminals 
have no right to live in our communities and benefit from our country.
  We must finally send a signal that we will not allow this cycle of 
crime and violence to continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

                          ____________________