[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H25-H29]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 788, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS 
ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 98, PROVIDING FOR 
  CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL 
  LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RELATING TO ``STANDARD FOR DETERMINING JOINT 
  EMPLOYER STATUS''; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 38, 
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
  FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RELATING TO ``WAIVER OF BUY AMERICA 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS''

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 947

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 788) to 
     limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to 
     which the United States is a party, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     118-18 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 the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees; (2) the further amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 98) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to 
     ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status''. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce or their respective designees; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 38) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to 
     ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle 
     Chargers''. All points of order against consideration of the 
     joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and 
produced a rule, House Resolution 947, providing for the House's 
consideration of several pieces of legislation.
  The rule provides for H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, 
to be considered 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 the Judiciary, or their designees, and provides for 
one motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 98, a joint 
resolution related to a rule submitted by the National Labor Relations 
Board relating to the ``Standard for Determining

[[Page H26]]

Joint Employer Status.'' H.J. Res. 98 would be considered under a 
closed rule, and it also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, or their designees, and provides for one 
motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 38, a joint 
resolution nullifying the final rule of the Federal Highway 
Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for 
Electric Vehicle Chargers.'' It also provides 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or their designees, and 
provides for one motion to commit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying pieces of legislation.
  Beginning with H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, Mr. 
Speaker, we have picked up right where we left off in the first session 
of the 118th Congress, stopping this administration from overstepping.
  During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice went about 
ending the practice of allowing these third-party settlement 
agreements. Because the focus of the Justice Department should be 
delivering justice and doing so under equal application of the law, the 
Justice Department should not be picking winners and losers. The DOJ 
should not be in the business of choosing parties far removed from the 
taxpayer and not directly related to the case at hand to be benefiting 
from a settlement.
  Sadly, from the very onset of the Biden Presidency, this 
administration has been laser focused on undoing the progress of the 
previous administration. This administration has consistently and 
simultaneously overstepped their authority in rulemaking and 
underdelivered for the American people. That is why we are here.
  Following the President's day-one directive to review reinstating 
Obama-era policies, the Biden administration began rescinding Trump-era 
policies.

                              {time}  1215

  I think most Americans would agree that the Federal Government should 
not be requiring settling parties to make donations to unrelated third 
parties.
  I think most Americans would be shocked that these settlement 
payments don't go to the U.S. Treasury but to liberal wish-list 
recipients.
  Justice is not best served by this practice and it is why the Trump 
administration ended the process.
  Just as important, ending this practice ensures accountability from 
the government by preventing those in power from rewarding political 
allies, as well as protecting this body's constitutional 
responsibilities.
  We have seen this practice used to push funds to far-left 
organizations that use the money to support out-of-touch or woke 
ideologies. We should put an end to this egregious practice by the 
Biden administration.
  Moving on to the workforce. As a member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, I am glad to see consideration of H.J. Res. 98, of 
which I am an original cosponsor.
  This legislation is meant to protect small businesses, particularly 
franchisees from the Biden administration's assault.
  This resolution is meant to preserve the job opportunities these 
leaders create and to protect their freedom to run their businesses as 
they see fit. It also preserves choice and flexibility for prospective 
employees. This joint resolution will ensure a predictable and rational 
legal standard for what qualifies as a joint employer.
  For an administration that can't seem to put far-left ideology aside 
long enough to get our economy on track, I suppose this rule fits in 
with a larger pattern of stifling economic growth and driving the cost 
of doing business even higher.
  We should be taking up policies that empower employers, not finding 
ways to make it more difficult to do business in America.
  Finally, on to S.J. Res. 38. Similarly, and it seems there is a 
pattern here, Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution fights back against 
the Biden administration's policies that hurt American manufacturers in 
favor of the Communist Party of China.
  S.J. Res. 38 will ensure Buy America requirements are applied and 
that this misguided Biden rule does not strengthen China over American 
companies.
  We understand the administration wants to force electric vehicles on 
the American people, and that in order to make these chargers less 
expensive and to meet their unrealistic green goals, they want to rely 
on Chinese manufacturers, but we cannot let those political objectives 
hurt our own American manufacturing while strengthening China at the 
same time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we all have said and highlighted before on the floor, 
we know the Biden administration's priority is to pour billions into 
green energy and clean cars. By rushing to reach arbitrary green and 
climate agendas, the United States is more likely to solidify China's 
control of our energy future rather than save the planet.
  Mr. Speaker, we must be strengthening our American manufacturers. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S.J. Res. 38 as the 
Senate, including Senate Democrats, have already done.
  If the President really wants to veto this bill, despite his 
administration's flawed approach, then we should give him that 
opportunity.
  I look forward to consideration of all of these three pieces of 
legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. 
Houchin) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you would think that for the very first week back of the 
new year, House Republicans would try to correct course and fix their 
failing majority.
  You would think that after presiding over one of the most 
unproductive, ineffective, incompetent sessions of Congress in history, 
certainly since I have been here, that Republicans would use the new 
year as a fresh start to reset their priorities and to actually work 
with Democrats to get stuff done.
  You would think that they would bring to the floor some big, 
important piece of legislation to follow through on their promises, or, 
I don't know, a bill to stop the government shutdown that is right 
around the corner.
  You would think all of that, but you would be wrong.
  Today, we are here for the first meeting of 2024 to consider more 
junk, more filler, more nonsense messaging bills that do nothing to 
help everyday people--bills that seek to help their billionaire friends 
and corporate sponsors.
  First is H.R. 788, the so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. 
This bill stems from a fruitless Republican-led investigation based on 
meritless allegations of political bias when the Obama administration's 
Justice Department held big banks accountable for their predatory 
lending practices.
  After a full year in the majority, Republicans still have no new 
ideas or real agenda to help the American public, so they want to pass 
off this solution in search of a problem from 10 years ago as some big, 
important new bill.
  It is not big, it is not new, and it is definitely not important. It 
is a waste of our time.
  Then we have S.J. Res. 38. This joint resolution is House 
Republicans' attempt to weaken President Biden's Buy America 
requirements, allowing Federal dollars to be spent on chargers made in 
competitor countries like the People's Republic of China. While 
Democrats and President Biden work to bring jobs back from China, 
Republicans are eager to do the bidding of billionaire corporations and 
ship jobs overseas to China.
  Now let that sink in.
  Finally, is H.J. Res. 98, a resolution that blatantly attacks 
workers. This bill would weaken their ability to organize and 
collectively bargain. These three bills have one thing in common, Mr. 
Speaker: They will not become law. They are going nowhere, and they are 
a waste of our time.

  The way this place is being run is just so absurd. It is pathetic.
  We are facing a partial government shutdown by the end of next week. 
The extreme MAGA Freedom Caucus is once again eager to shut it down.

[[Page H27]]

  Now maybe they think a shutdown will help crash the economy, like 
Donald Trump has said he wants. The leader of the Republican Party 
spent the week praying for the economy to collapse because he thinks it 
will help him win the election in November. Imagine that.
  Mr. Speaker, that really illustrates the difference between Democrats 
and Republicans.
  We want America to succeed, no matter who is in charge, because we 
love this country and we put people over politics. Republicans led by 
Trump are cheering for America to fail and for everyone to suffer 
because they think it will help them politically.
  What a sick, twisted, messed up ideology. They are literally cheering 
for America to fail. I guess they think that maybe if they shut down 
the government that that will help.
  I heard that the current Speaker was on the telephone with Donald 
Trump basically begging him to support the deal to fund the government, 
because let's be honest, that is who run this place: Donald Trump and 
the MAGA extremists who worship him.
  That is the guy, by the way, whose lawyers argued in court yesterday 
that he can legally assassinate any of us and he can't be held 
accountable because the President is above the law.
  I mean, what the hell is wrong with these people? Not a peep, not a 
whisper from any of my Republican colleagues. Not a single one of them 
who is willing to stand up and display some courage and say that the 
former President should not be above the rule of law.
  We may be back, Mr. Speaker, and it may be a new year, but it is 
clear it is the same old Republican majority trying to distract from 
their own disarray and division and doing the bidding of Donald Trump 
instead of working for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, these arguments merely are misdirection. The executive 
branch has the power under the Constitution to enforce the laws.
  When wrongdoers violate Federal law, any settlement with the 
government should be focused on three things: compensating victims, 
redressing harm, and punishing or deterring unlawful conduct.
  Settlement agreements that require donations to outside parties do 
not accomplish those goals. Required donations do not compensate 
victims, as the funds go to outside third parties not involved in the 
litigation, and they do not punish and deter unlawful conduct, 
particularly as settling parties can reduce their fines from $2 to $1 
for each dollar donated.
  Moving on to criticisms against H.J. Res. 98 about franchisees. It is 
a hysterical argument that broadly misses the mark.
  Employees of franchisees are still entitled to protection under the 
National Labor Relations Act. They are still able to organize labor 
unions if they so choose. Franchisees are subject to collective 
bargaining laws, worker safety laws, fair wage laws, and franchisors, 
just as other large companies are.
  One of the concerns that we have is that there will be disastrous 
consequences under this rule. I just find that is not the case. We are 
promoting small business owners and franchisees above these woke 
policies that harm the American employer and the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we can talk about these filler bills all 
day, but the fact of the matter is they are going nowhere. We are 
wasting our time doing this.
  We should be focused on making sure that Republicans don't shut the 
government down beginning at the end of next week.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that 
unambiguously states that the people's House will keep its promise to 
the American workers and senior citizens. We will protect and preserve 
Social Security and Medicare for future generations, two important 
programs that my Republican friends are constantly attacking.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with any 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question. Instead of focusing on policies that would make life better 
and easier for Americans, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are constantly wasting time on legislation to disrupt longstanding 
laws, to pass bills that would offshore American manufacturers, make it 
more difficult for workers to receive a fair shake, and prevent the 
Federal Government from holding big corporations accountable.
  Rather than focusing on these issues, our time would be better spent 
ensuring that our seniors have access to the benefits that they have 
earned.
  Social Security and Medicare are more than just important government 
programs, they are commitments made by one generation to the next.
  Since my first term in Congress, I have worked tirelessly to protect 
these critical benefits, fighting back against extremist cuts that 
would gut our Nation's cornerstone economic security programs. The 
fight goes on because the GOP is still hell-bent on eliminating these 
programs.

  Social Security and Medicare are overwhelmingly popular because they 
provide critically important benefits, not only to our seniors, but to 
other vulnerable Americans, as well.
  My constituents and all Americans have paid into these programs, and 
they are counting on them for a dignified retirement and essential 
healthcare.
  It is also critical that we work to ensure that the Social Security 
Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have 
the resources that they need. Despite the fact that Social Security is 
by far the most popular and necessary program in our country, the 
Social Security Administration does not receive the funding that it 
desperately needs to support many of the most vulnerable in our 
community and across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our seniors can receive the benefits they 
have earned should not be a partisan debate.
  I hope that my Republican colleagues agree and that we can find 
bipartisan commonsense solutions to this pressing issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can focus on more pressing legislation, like 
funding our government and reaffirming our commitment to seniors and 
the more vulnerable members of our society, and reaffirming our 
commitment to Social Security and Medicare.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, if I had one word to describe what I hear 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the 
administration, it would be gaslighting.
  My colleagues claim that we don't want to help everyday Americans. My 
colleagues claim that we are offshoring American jobs when the very 
bills we are considering here today are trying to fight against doing 
precisely that.
  They claim that we are trying to hurt businessowners.
  We are trying to help businessowners by giving them more flexibility 
to engage in employee relationships as they see fit. We are trying to 
bring American jobs back by supporting our American manufacturers over 
Chinese manufacturers. We are trying to compensate victims over woke 
ideological groups.
  It is more gaslighting from our colleagues on the left. I hope that 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that and will 
join us in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentlewoman that one of the 
differences between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats have 
historically been and continue to be on the side of workers and on 
behalf of small businesses in trying to bring as

[[Page H28]]

many jobs back from places like China as possible, and we would be 
doing that no matter who is in charge in the White House because we put 
people above politics.
  I contrast that with my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
seem to be cheering for America to fail and who work overtime to try to 
demean our workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article that appeared in The New York Times titled: ``Trump says he 
hopes any economic crash happens in 2024 so he isn't blamed.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Molinaro). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 2024]

  Trump Says he Hopes Any Economic Crash Happens in 2024 so he isn't 
                                Blamed.

                           (By Maggie Astor)

       Former President Donald J. Trump said in an interview on 
     Monday that he believed the economy would crash--and that he 
     hoped it would happen in the next year so the blame would 
     fall on President Biden's administration.
       We have an economy that's so fragile, and the only reason 
     it's running now is it's running off the fumes of what we 
     did,'' Mr. Trump told the conservative commentator Lou Dobbs 
     in an interview broadcast Monday evening on the MyPillow 
     founder Mike Lindell's platform. ``It's just running off the 
     fumes. And when there's a crash, I hope it's going to be 
     during this next 12 months, because I don't want to be 
     Herbert Hoover.''
       President Hoover presided over the 1929 stock market crash 
     that started the Great Depression.
       Mr. Trump is hoping to capitalize on voters' economic 
     concerns, as a number of polls have shown that voters trust 
     him and other Republicans more than they trust Mr. Biden to 
     handle the economy. In the interview, he criticized Mr. 
     Biden's and congressional Democrats' spending on 
     infrastructure and renewable energy.
       The Biden campaign has been frustrated by a disconnect 
     between positive economic indicators--including strong G.D.P. 
     growth, increasing jobs and higher wages--and negative public 
     opinion. Many Americans are still struggling to get by, 
     mortgage rates are high, and while inflation has fallen 
     significantly from the peaks of 2022, those price increases 
     still weigh heavily on voters' minds.
       Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, condemned Mr. 
     Trump's comments hoping for a downturn and said the former 
     president's policies ``would worsen inflation with tax 
     giveaways to rich special interests.''
       ``A commander in chief's duty is to always put the American 
     people first, never to hope that hard-working families suffer 
     economic pain for their own political benefit,'' Mr. Bates 
     said. ``Republican officials should welcome the economic 
     progress President Biden is delivering, instead of revealing 
     twisted true colors that would shrink the American middle 
     class in the name of their own cynical self-interests.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let that sink in. The leader of the 
Republican Party, the person whom they are all falling over each other 
to try to support, is cheering for our economy to crash because it 
might help him politically.
  It is not about the American people, it is not about workers, and it 
is not about businesses. It is about him.
  What happened to the Republican Party?
  The obsession with Trump and all of this is not only disappointing, 
but it is scary. Again, I will go back to the way I began this debate. 
The legislation we are considering today is three nothing burgers. None 
of these bills are going to become law. They are just filler. They are 
an excuse for us to be able to meet when what we should be doing is 
making sure that the government remains open and that it doesn't shut 
down at the end of next week.
  Quite frankly, that business should have been done last year, but 
Republicans continue to fight amongst themselves and can't seem to be 
able to get anything done. Again, this is the most unproductive and 
useless Congress, I think, in history.
  So, again, I would just simply say that we all need to figure out a 
way to pass legislation that will not adversely impact our economy and 
to find areas of common ground where we can actually get stuff done, 
but this is not what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are just at it again, 
aren't they?
  They keep bringing up bills that protect big corporations and banks 
instead of helping Americans and protecting working families.
  We saw it when Republicans tried to cut funding for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission and to weaken the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. These are agencies that the American people trust 
and they want because these are agencies that stand with consumers.
  Our consumers need and want someone in their corner. Republicans, 
however, keep trying to restrain the Federal agencies who are charged 
with defending and protecting our consumers, including today, the 
Department of Justice.
  H.R. 788 is another attempt to protect those same big banks and big 
corporations, the ones that pollute our communities and put their own 
profits over people's ability to stay in their homes.
  For example, Bank of America made a lot of money by selling subprime 
mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis. Bank of America hurt 
regular peoples' ability to buy and stay in a home of their own. So the 
Department of Justice went after Bank of America, and they entered into 
a settlement agreement to hold that bank accountable. That settlement 
required the bank to pay damages to the Americans who were directly 
harmed by its actions.
  We know that what the Bank of America and all those greedy 
corporations did was to more than just hurt the consumers of that bank, 
it hurt the housing market itself. It made it harder for families to 
buy homes. Their actions led to the Great Recession.
  So the settlement that the Department of Justice did made sure that 
Bank of America had to pay nonprofits to address the larger systemic 
harm the bank caused. Those settlement funds helped provide resources 
for housing, counseling, homeownership, and more. In Iowa, nonprofits 
provided down payment assistance and demolished decaying homes. In 
Indiana, the bar foundation provided legal aid in foreclosure cases.
  These are good things.
  Why would we want to stop them?
  Apparently, however, Republicans didn't like the fact that the 
Department of Justice was standing up to bad actors because H.R. 788 
would block that help.
  H.R. 788 would handcuff the Department of Justice so it could not 
demand a bad actor pay for the harm it caused to our society.
  I must remind everybody that, just as we heard from our ranking 
member, we are dedicating a whole week to this bill and some others 
that would overturn actions that our Americans need to protect them to 
move us forward in protecting our climate.
  We are doing all of this instead of what?
  We are not funding the government, are we?
  Do any of these bills deal with any of the issues that Americans want 
us to do?
  These bills show us that Republicans cannot govern. Instead, they are 
continuing to put profits over people, and we must reject this rule.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this has been the most incompetent, ineffective, 
and unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of 
America. The fact that we are here considering these nonsense, do-
nothing bills is just the latest example.
  This Republican majority has been a failure and a total 
embarrassment. I could spend all day comparing our record with theirs. 
Republicans have had pathetically few bills of substance enacted into 
law, and on must-pass legislation, every single time it has been 
Democrats who have had to step up to give Republicans the votes that 
they needed to get things across the finish line. The gentlewoman can't 
rebut that because there is nothing to rebut. Republicans have done 
nothing of importance. I don't even know why they want to be in charge, 
quite frankly, since they have wasted away their time in the majority.
  It is not just me saying that. It is them. Congressman Chip Roy who 
sits on the Rules Committee said: ``I want

[[Page H29]]

my Republican colleagues to give me one thing, one thing, that I can go 
campaign on and say we did. One. Anybody sitting in the complex, if you 
want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, 
meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done. . . . 
''

  More recently, Congressman   Andy Biggs said: ``We have nothing to go 
out there and campaign on. . . . It is embarrassing.''
  Congresswoman Debbie Lesko said: ``We can't get anything done around 
here. It is very frustrating.''
  What do Republicans say when they go home and voters ask: What have 
you done? What have you done?
  What do you tell them?
  What do you say to somebody who asks: Why are you more concerned 
about Hunter Biden than about our constituents?
  You people need to touch the grass, get a grip, and get some help. 
Republicans have turned this place into one big SNL skit, except this 
isn't funny. We have serious business to get done around here, and they 
are just openly admitting that they cannot govern.
  They have no new ideas or problems that they want to solve. Their 
whole platform is built around using division and anger to distract 
from the unmitigated disaster that is this Republican majority. The 
only hope around this place is that it is an election year and their 
gross incompetence will probably lose them the House come November.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to do better, and there needs to be more urgency 
in this Chamber about making sure that the government doesn't shut down 
next week.
  The one job, that no matter who is in charge has, is to make sure 
that the lights stay on here, that we don't stop the functioning of 
Government, and that we don't turn our backs on the American people.
  Yet, we are getting perilously close to that moment when there could 
be a shutdown. It is disgraceful that we are here debating these filler 
bills that are going nowhere and that we are not working on real 
business that will help real people in this country and help pave the 
way for a better future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that with Republicans being in the 
majority, one major accomplishment is that we have stopped a lot of bad 
things potentially from happening that our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle might wish to push forward.
  We have before us the opportunity to move legislation here that could 
have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether 
that is pushing back on overreach of the bureaucratic state or 
protecting job creators. The choice before us in this rule is clear, 
and we must take action.
  We must be taking actions that improve this economy and fight 
inflation, but, again and again, we see this administration making it 
harder and not easier to do business in America. It defies logic.
  Apparently, there is no cost too high for this administration or my 
Democratic colleagues when it comes to this pursuit, not even the fact 
that China stands to benefit from one of these rules and the American 
manufacturer stands to lose. The American people know better.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House 
this week. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the 
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 947 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except 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.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________