[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H281-H288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5585, AGENT RAUL GONZALEZ OFFICER 
SAFETY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6678, CONSEQUENCES FOR 
SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6679, NO 
   IMMIGRATION BENEFITS FOR HAMAS TERRORISTS ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6976, PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES FROM DUIS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 980 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 980

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5585) to impose criminal and immigration 
     penalties for intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal 
     officer while operating a motor vehicle. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. 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 
     118-21 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered 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, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6678) to amend 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens 
     who have been convicted of or who have committed Social 
     Security fraud are inadmissible and deportable. 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 118-23 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 part B of 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. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6679) to amend 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens 
     who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, 
     supported, or otherwise facilitated the attacks against 
     Israel. 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 
     118-24 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 part C of 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. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6976) to amend 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens 
     who have been convicted of or who have committed an offense 
     for driving while intoxicated or impaired are inadmissible 
     and deportable. 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 
     118-22 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of

[[Page H282]]

     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 part D of 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 980, providing for consideration of 
four measures: H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679, and H.R. 6976.
  The rule provides for consideration of all four measures under 
structured rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of 
jurisdiction, or their designee. The rule provides one motion to 
recommit for each measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and support of the 
underlying bills.
  Today, we are here to address an ongoing crisis, not a new concept to 
this body. The word ``crisis'' has been a hard one for my friends on 
the other side of the aisle to absorb when it comes to our current 
situation on the southern border.
  Let's just put a few things into perspective:
  In 2023, Customs and Border Protection encountered over 2\1/2\ 
million illegal migrants attempting to cross the southern U.S. border.
  In December alone, Customs and Border Protection encountered 302,000 
illegal migrants--that is just in the month of December--attempting to 
cross the U.S. southern border, the highest number of unlawful migrant 
crossings in a single month in recorded history.
  In 2023, Customs and Border Protection confiscated almost 230,000 
pounds of drugs, including 22,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl, being 
smuggled across the southern border.
  If this doesn't sound like a crisis to you, I don't know what would.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I was at the southern border to 
witness firsthand the challenges faced by Texans and to hear directly 
from Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers who are on the 
front lines of this crisis.
  Magically, either by order of President Biden or by order of the 
cartels, the Eagle Pass area was completely cleared out that day. If 
that is possible when Members of Congress are visiting on a certain 
day, it is possible every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has every tool that he needs right now to 
stop the overwhelming flow of migrants to the border. The proof of this 
is that immediately upon taking office, President Biden dismantled the 
immigration policies that were put in place by the Trump 
administration. He did that by executive order. He can undo them by 
executive order.
  President Biden halted the construction of the border wall, ended 
Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the remain in Mexico 
program, and restarted the dangerous catch and release program with the 
simple stroke of a pen.
  Now the consequences have been stark: record numbers of migrants 
crossing the border and increasing each month; record numbers of 
illegal migrants being released into the United States; an open season 
for drug smugglers, human traffickers, and Mexican cartels; and social 
support systems stretched to the breaking point, not only in my home 
State of Texas, but places across the country like New York City, 
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an immigration problem; it is a national 
security problem. We have a responsibility to make certain that the 
laws of this land protect Americans and ensure their safety.
  Earlier this Congress, we passed H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 
2023, to combat illegal migration and ensure operational control over 
the southern border, but the Senate has refused to even debate or have 
a vote on the bill.
  Today, we take up four additional bills that will help undo the chaos 
caused by this administration to ensure that law enforcement, 
particularly the agents of Customs and Border Protection, Federal 
agents are supported in their mission to keep our communities safe. 
This means closing loopholes that allow illicit behavior to go without 
punishment, which is exactly what the following four measures will do.
  Last year, Customs and Border Patrol Agent Raul Gonzalez was 
tragically killed in pursuit of illegal migrants fleeing law 
enforcement in a motor vehicle. High-speed chases started by those 
breaking our laws are not uncommon.
  In fact, any of us who have been down and visited the border, whether 
it was several years ago or recently, have been shown the films, the 
dash cam videos collected by Customs and Border Protection of these 
very high-risk, high-velocity chases which frequently end up with a 
crash, with people hurt, or people simply bailing out on the highway 
and running away.
  Currently, fleeing law enforcement in a motor vehicle does not carry 
immigration consequences for the perpetrators, even in situations that 
result in the death of an officer, like the one involving Agent 
Gonzalez.
  H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act will change 
that by adding specific criminal and immigration consequences for 
individuals who operate motor vehicles while fleeing Border Patrol and 
law enforcement agents.
  The penalties instituted by this bill include prison time and ensure 
that perpetrators can be deemed inadmissible to this country and 
deported from the United States.
  Preventing deadly accidents that endanger lives is also the focus of 
H.R. 6976, the Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act.
  With a simple turn of a key, an intoxicated driver commits a crime 
and illegal migrants are no different. Tragically, many of these 
incidents involve individuals who should not be in the country at all. 
Illegal migrants who have committed this offense are evaluated under 
the crimes involving moral turpitude standard, a difficult and complex 
legal analysis that results in long delays and lengthy legal 
proceedings.
  H.R. 6976 will change this and provide immigration consequences for 
driving under the influence, rendering illegal migrants who have 
committed this offense inadmissible to this country and deportable 
without a lengthy process.
  In a similar vein, with identification and fraud on the rise, H.R. 
6678, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act will ensure that 
criminal or illegal migrants who commit Social Security and ID fraud 
can be removed and barred from this country.
  Finally, we will take up H.R. 6679, the No Immigration Benefits for 
Hamas Terrorists Act. In October, the world watched in horror as Hamas, 
a designated terror organization, committed a vicious and evil attack 
on Israel. Twelve hundred Israelis, including American citizens, were 
murdered. Another 240 were taken back to Gaza as hostages where many 
remain today.

                              {time}  1230

  Terrorists who participated in, planned, or otherwise supported the 
October 7 attacks should not be admissible to the United States, full 
stop. There is no reason for a member of Hamas to ever be admitted into 
the United States. H.R. 6679 will make that a reality and ensure that 
we can prevent these deadly and evil people from

[[Page H283]]

ever entering our country, thereby protecting our citizens.
  Taken together, eradicating these gaps in our legal recourse will 
deter criminal activity and ensure that bad actors face appropriate 
punishment for their crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans have demonstrated that we are committed to 
governing for the American people and that the American people have 
spoken. Their message to their elected Representatives is: ``Enough.''
  Enough with sending their tax dollars to process migrants that should 
not be in this country in the first place instead of enforcing the law; 
enough with putting law enforcement both at the border and across 
America in harm's way; enough with the fearmongering and lies.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
bills. I urge my fellow Members to support the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me set a couple of things straight.
  The border is not open. Now, maybe some people think it is because my 
Republican colleagues every day for the last 2 years have come to the 
floor screaming, ``The border is open. The border is open. The border 
is open.''
  However, the border is not open, and that is just a fact. Today, 
there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which 
is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump 
administration averaged in fiscal year 2018.
  The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals in 
ways that many on our side of the aisle are concerned violates due 
process. Since the end of title 42 last year, the Biden administration 
has removed or returned to Mexico close to 500,000 individuals. The 
total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of 
fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.
  Please, please, stop making things up and stop claiming the border is 
open. It is not.
  Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Absolutely, we do. 
However, listening to the gentleman, he seems to have no solutions. I 
mean, I think he thinks this is Beetlejuice, if you say ``crisis'' 
three times, the problem goes away. No; you have to take some action. 
You have to work to try to address the issue.
  Democrats and President Biden want to find real, comprehensive 
solutions to fix it. What we need is Republicans to stop playing 
political games, and that is the exact opposite of what is happening 
here and what has been happening under this Republican-controlled House 
of Representatives. It is shameful.
  I know that because we called their bluff. Democrats said, yeah, we 
care about border security, too. Let's get to work. Now Republicans 
tell us that they would rather wait until after the election. They 
don't actually want the thing they have been talking about for the last 
year. It is all a big lie. It is all a big lie.
  Why? Why would they want to wait? Why don't they want to work with us 
to fix the border right now? I think we all know the answer. Trump 
called--the guy they all worship, the guy they are all frightened to 
death of. He called, and he is demanding that they do nothing. No 
action at all on the border, that is what he said because he wants to 
campaign on it. I mean, what the hell is wrong with them?
  The Senate is working on a bipartisan border security bill, and 
Republicans tell us here in the House that they don't care what is in 
it. They will oppose it no matter what. From what I hear, I am not sure 
that I can even support the bill they are working on over in the 
Senate. It has things in it that cause me a lot of angst, but 
Republicans are sure that they are against it because Trump told them 
to be against it.
  That is because, at the end of the day, all he wants is to be able to 
scare people by demonizing immigrants and whipping up hate and fear and 
appealing to racism and bigotry. It is disgusting. It is that simple. I 
mean, I am not surprised. This is the guy who says: ``Immigrants poison 
the blood of America,'' echoing the words of Adolf Hitler. We can't get 
anyone on the other side of the aisle to try to disassociate themselves 
with those remarks. That is who the Republicans listen to. That is who 
is calling the shots here. Trump says no action on border security, 
period.
  Please, spare us the outrage and indignation. It is all theatrics. It 
is all for show, all so you can go on FOX News and blame President 
Biden for something that they refuse to fix. Republicans tried to cut 
Customs and Border Protection personnel. They rejected President 
Biden's request for $106 billion in funding to fix this problem, and 
they have consistently voted against funding for border security.
  You can't make this stuff up. They say we don't need more money. We 
just need a President who follows the law. We hear that again and 
again. We heard that last night in the Rules Committee. I hope that 
they are not implying that the former President--a rapist who was just 
ordered by a jury to pay $83 million for defaming his victim--follows 
the law.
  He has been indicted 4 times with 91 felony counts. I mean, this guy 
has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Give me a break. 
That is who is calling the shots around here? It is shameful.
  The bottom line is that they simply do not want to fix the border 
crisis. House Democrats, Senate Democrats, President Biden--hell, even 
Senate Republicans, some of the most conservative Republicans in the 
Senate, have been working together in a bipartisan way to solve this 
country's problems.
  We acknowledge we need to address our problems at the border, provide 
a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, fix our broken immigration 
system, and address the root causes of migration.

  What does the extreme MAGA clown show in this House care about? Not 
fixing the border. They care about Trump, about bending over backwards 
for his campaign and turning this place into a circus. What a shame. 
What a waste of time. What an embarrassment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just to answer 
some of the charges flung against me.
  The gentleman said he wants solutions. There are solutions. The 
solutions are to undo the executive order the President put in place in 
his first 5 minutes in office, end catch and release, cease the 
exploitation of parole authority, reinstate remain in Mexico, expand 
expedited removal authority, and renew the building of a wall.
  Mr. Speaker, it is sheer fantasy that $106 billion will fix this 
problem. Of course, it won't. The gentleman knows it won't.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his service. 
We will be missing him next Congress, but we still have some more time 
and work to do together.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about 
the bills that are sitting here in front of them because they are going 
to vote against at least three of them. We know that because they did 
it in Judiciary Committee.
  These bills are pretty simple. If you are here and you evade Border 
Patrol, you can't stay here or come here. If you are here and you have 
committed Social Security fraud, you can't stay here or come here. If 
you are here and you have committed a DUI, you can't stay here or come 
here. Judiciary Democrats voted against all three of those. Let's put 
aside that if you are here, illegally, you should be deported anyway.
  Then there is if you are here and a member of Hamas, or participated 
in, or facilitated the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, you cannot 
stay here or come here. Now, on that, it was passed unanimously. We 
will see what happens when it comes to the floor when some of the folks 
not on Judiciary Committee look at the bill.
  I find it interesting that a blanket statement is made that some of 
us take our orders from former President Trump. Well, if somebody has a 
phone line into Mar-a-Lago, why don't you give him a call? I think he 
would be surprised to hear that I take orders from former President 
Trump, in light

[[Page H284]]

of the recent time I have spent around the country.
  I would tell you this: I don't take orders from the former President. 
I know that we shouldn't make this a political issue. I know this is an 
issue we should solve, but I don't think that is what the former 
President was saying.
  I think the former President was saying this bill in the Senate is 
garbage, that it will make the problem worse; that we have all the 
power we need now to secure the border, and that the current President 
and current administration are ignoring it, and, indeed, purposely 
avoiding the law in order to flood America, which is endangering 
Americans; fentanyl flowing in; empowering cartels; empowering China; 
terrorists coming into our country; and criminals coming into our 
country. That is the truth. What the former President knows is that the 
bill being negotiated in the Senate is not a good one. He is calling 
that out.
  However, I can assure you, I don't take orders from the former 
President, nor do I take orders from Somalis in Minnesota, but some 
people do. That is the truth.
  The fact here is, we have legislation before us right now to address 
real problems for the people that we represent. I can tell you we do in 
Texas. We have a bill being negotiated in the Senate that is being 
deemed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as, Oh, a 
reasonable solution. A reasonable solution, when we had a bill last 
year that would actually secure the border with H.R. 2, which would 
close loopholes being exploited by our Democratic colleagues.
  I had witnesses in a recent hearing on the Constitution and States 
stepping into the breach. The first assistant attorney general of Texas 
and the former attorney general of Arizona, they all testified under 
oath that there is an invasion. They all came forward to say that it 
was the right of the Governors, the right of the States to step in.
  I had the ACLU witness acknowledge to me: I said, Hey, if cartels are 
coming guns a-blazing, they come across the river, can you defend 
yourself?
  He said, Well, if it is a violation of State law, sure.
  I said, Oh, really? That is an interesting piece of information to 
hear from the ACLU, that the State, that the Governor can, in fact, do 
what is necessary to defend the people of his State based on the laws 
of that State and, frankly, based on every understanding of what a 
leadership of a sovereign would do, and that is the truth.

  Right now what we have are Democrats in the Senate wanting to hide 
behind a bill they know has no chance of moving through because, 
frankly, if it were passed, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are concerned about us campaigning on this, making it a political 
issue.
  If that legislation were passed, the issue would still exist because 
the legislation wouldn't do anything to stop it. It sets a floor, not a 
ceiling. It sets a standard of 5,000 a day. Come on in, 1.8 million 
folks. That is the truth, if you read the bill.
  The reality is, the gentleman talks about, Oh, we have 38,000 people 
in detention. Well, the truth is, we had 900,000 people get released 
last year; 900,000 got released. That doesn't count the ICE releases, 
that doesn't count the 50,000 a month of got-aways. These are the 
numbers we are talking about, and they are on an extraordinary level.
  I remind everybody that here before us is legislation that all it 
does is try to layer on a commonsense ability to remove bad actors, 
DUIs, those affiliated with Hamas, Border Patrol having to chase people 
in high-speed chases, and those committing Social Security fraud. My 
Democratic colleagues don't want to talk about it because they are not 
going to support those commonsense measures.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I missed a lot of what the gentleman from Texas just screamed because 
I couldn't follow it all.
  Mr. Speaker, it is being intimated that this bill that is being 
worked on in the Senate somehow does nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN 
article titled: ``GOP Senators seethe as Trump blows up delicate 
immigration compromise.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                       [From CNN, Jan. 25, 2024]

 GOP Senators Seethe as Trump Blows up Delicate Immigration Compromise

       (By Manu Raju, Melanie Zanona, Lauren Fox and Ted Barrett)

       Senior Senate Republicans are furious that Donald Trump may 
     have killed an emerging bipartisan deal over the southern 
     border, depriving them of a key legislative achievement on a 
     pressing national priority and offering a preview of what's 
     to come with Trump as their likely presidential nominee.
       In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both 
     in private conversations and in public statements on social 
     media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed 
     out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the 
     conversations--in part because he wants to campaign on the 
     issue this November and doesn't want President Joe Biden to 
     score a victory in an area where he is politically 
     vulnerable.
       Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged in a private 
     meeting on Wednesday that Trump's animosity toward the yet-
     to-be-released border deal puts Republicans in a serious bind 
     as they try to move forward on the already complex issue. For 
     weeks, Republicans have been warning that Trump's opposition 
     could blow up the bipartisan proposal, but the admission from 
     McConnell was particularly striking, given he has been a 
     chief advocate for a border-Ukraine package.
       Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are grappling with the 
     reality that most in the GOP are loathe to do anything that 
     is seen as potentially undermining the former president. And 
     the prospects of a deal being scuttled before it has even 
     been finalized has sparked tensions and confusion in the 
     Senate GOP as they try to figure out if, and how, to 
     proceed--even as McConnell made clear during party lunches 
     Thursday that he remains firmly behind the effort to strike a 
     deal, according to attendees.
       ``I think the border is a very important issue for Donald 
     Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican 
     senators and congresspeople that he doesn't want us to solve 
     the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is 
     .  .  . really appalling,'' said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of 
     Utah, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump.
       He added, ``But the reality is that, that we have a crisis 
     at the border, the American people are suffering as a result 
     of what's happening at the border. And someone running for 
     president not to try and get the problem solved. as opposed 
     to saying, `hey, save that problem. Don't solve it. Let me 
     take credit for solving it later.' ''
       GOP Sen. Todd Young of Indiana called any efforts to 
     disrupt the ongoing negotiations ``tragic'' and said: ``I 
     hope no one is trying to take this away for campaign 
     purposes.''
       ``I would encourage (chief Senate GOP negotiator) James 
     Lankford and other conservatives to produce a work product 
     with which they will shortly allow conservatives like myself 
     to review it and take heart that there are a number of us who 
     won't be looking to third parties and assessing the propriety 
     of passing this bipartisan proposal,'' Young said.
       It's an all-too-familiar dynamic for the Republicans who 
     served while Trump was in office, where he could easily 
     derail legislative action on Capitol Hill with the blast of a 
     single tweet or stir up a new controversy that Republicans 
     were forced to respond to. And with Trump now marching toward 
     the presidential nomination, Republicans are once again 
     bracing for life with him as the nominee.
       Underscoring just how damaging Trump's comments and 
     campaign to kill the border deal have been in the Senate, one 
     GOP senator on condition of background told CNN that without 
     Trump, this deal would have had overwhelming support within 
     the conference.
       ``This proposal would have had almost unanimous Republican 
     support if it weren't for Donald Trump,'' the Republican 
     senator said.
       GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina--who has also been 
     involved in the talks--said he didn't know if anyone could 
     convince Trump to not kill the deal. But he acknowledged that 
     it would take some ``courage'' for members to be able to 
     press ahead at this point in defiance of Trump--though Tillis 
     argued it would ultimately be beneficial for Trump for them 
     to pass a border security deal and help address the flow of 
     migrants trying to enter the country.
       ``I think this is when members of the Senate have to show 
     some courage and do something that at the end of the day will 
     be very helpful for President Trump,'' Tillis said.
       Asked whether it was a mistake for Trump to be assailing 
     this deal, Tillis said: ``I'll leave it to him to figure out 
     how he needs to get into office. I hope you'll leave it to 
     some of us who would support that effort to give him the 
     tools he needs to really manage the border and the abuse and 
     the dangerous situation we have today.''
       For his part, McConnell--who has had zero relationship with 
     Trump since the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack--downplayed 
     Trump's opposition saying, ``It's not anything new,'' and 
     insisting they were not abandoning the talks.
       ``We're still working,'' McConnell said. ``Trying to get an 
     outcome.''

[[Page H285]]

       Sen. John Thune, the no. 2 Senate Republican, said the 
     discussions have reached a critical moment but acknowledged 
     they may need to turn to a ``plan B.''
       ``If we can't get there, then we'll go to plan B,'' Thune 
     said. ``But I think for now at least, there are still 
     attempts being made to try and reach a conclusion that would 
     satisfy a lot of Republicans.''
       In the latest sign that the emerging border deal faces an 
     uphill climb, a senior leadership aide to House GOP Leader 
     Steve Scalise told a group of Senate Republican chiefs of 
     staff on Thursday that it was dead on arrival in the House, 
     according to a source familiar.
       Senate Republicans on the fence about the proposal may be 
     less inclined to back it, knowing it's going nowhere in the 
     House and knowing Trump wants a border deal killed.
       Frustration reigned inside the Senate GOP on Thursday amid 
     lingering confusion over the status of a deal.
       While McConnell has said the talks are still proceeding, 
     Young warned Republican leadership against pulling the plug 
     before they've taken a thorough temperature check inside the 
     conference, where a contingent of Republicans are still 
     fighting for a deal.
       ``I think leadership needs to count noses before they make 
     any impulsive decisions,'' he said.
       Pressed on whether it was realistic to pass a border deal 
     with Trump opposing it, Young said: ``It may be possible. 
     Listen, I'm very much attuned to the political realities, but 
     I think before you make these consequential decisions on 
     behalf of this conference, you've got to consult with the 
     conference.''
       Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has been openly critical 
     of McConnell, said he was ``puzzled'' by the leader's 
     comments during the closed-door meeting on Wednesday, which 
     was supposed to be focused on Ukraine.
       ``I mean, we were talking about funding for Ukraine and all 
     of the sudden he brings up the border and then, again, lays 
     out what I consider a pretty lame excuse, trying to shift 
     blame to President Trump for, I would say, his failed 
     negotiation, not James Lankford,'' Johnson said. ``James 
     Lankford has worked his tail off. It's McConnell that took 
     away the leverage by not tying Ukraine funding to actually 
     securing the border.''
       Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has made no 
     secret of her frustration with Trump over the years, said 
     members need to remember how big this moment is for the 
     border and for Ukraine and put their own politics aside.
       ``I'm not giving up. This is not about Trump and this is 
     not about me. This is about our country. This is about 
     democracy around the world. This is about security for our 
     own country and so let's keep pushing to get this border 
     deal,'' she said. ``Let's stand by the commitments that we 
     have made for our friends and our allies so that our word 
     actually means something.''
       This is the second time in six years Trump killed or was 
     actively trying to kill a bipartisan immigration deal as it 
     emerged. Back in 2018, Murkowski was part of bipartisan talks 
     over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The 
     bill got 54 votes in the Senate, but not enough to get it 
     over the finish line.
       Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the Democrats 
     involved in the border talks, expressed frustration about 
     Trump seeking to inject chaos into the situation.
       ``I think over the next 24 to 48 hours, they are going to 
     make a decision as to whether they want to do this, or 
     whether the forces surrounding Donald Trump--who want to keep 
     chaos at the border--win,'' Murphy said. ``So they have a 
     decision to make. I hope they make that decision very 
     quickly. We have an agreement that is 95% written and is 
     ready to get to the floor if Republicans decide that they 
     actually want to solve the problem.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that people like 
Senator Thom Tillis--I didn't think he was a liberal Democrat. Unless I 
missed something, he is a pretty conservative Republican--said: ``Don't 
pretend that the policy isn't strong. If you want to admit you're just 
afraid to tell President Trump the truth, that's fine. But for you to 
take a look at this framework and say it's a half measure, either 
you're not paying attention or you're not telling the truth.''
  That is Senator Thom Tillis, a very conservative Republican Senator, 
saying that. It is not me. I would say that to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Senator Lankford, is he now a Democrat? Is he now a traitor to the 
cause? We heard some Republicans at a press conference yesterday talk 
about those who were supporting a compromise. He said the other day on 
``Face the Nation,'' and I quote, House Republicans actually do not 
want a change in the law because it is a Presidential election year.
  I mean, this is ridiculous. This is all theatrics. Shame on them for 
exploiting this issue. Shame on them for ginning up all this hate and 
all this vitriol and not wanting to be part of the solution, not 
wanting to do anything to fix it.
  I am also puzzled. I think I need to go to the Capitol's attending 
physician to see if I can get a neck brace because I have whiplash 
following the logic of some of my Republican friends.
  We heard all year that we need to pass a bill in order to fix the 
immigration crisis at the border, and then last night in the Rules 
Committee we are told we don't need a bill, we don't need a law. Then 
here we are today dealing with four more bills that, by the way, most 
of which is already covered in existing law.
  What is it? Do we need a law, or don't we need a law? If we don't 
need a law, what the hell are we here for?

                              {time}  1245

  Why are we wasting our time? This is not a debate club, right. We are 
here to actually get things done. If the gentleman wants to be part of 
the solution, then be part of the solution.
  If the gentleman just wants to complain for the sake of complaining, 
then just do it in the press conferences. Don't waste time here.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and 
Promise Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, 
temporary protected status holders, and deferred enforced departure 
recipients.
  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 California (Ms. Barragan), to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we 
will bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.
  This is bipartisan legislation that would lift up our immigrant 
brothers and sisters and do more to address our broken immigration 
system than anti-immigrant bills offered by Republicans today.
  H.R. 16 would give certainty to Dreamers who were raised here in 
America and are an integral part of who we are as a Nation.
  As one Republican said: This is not a Democrat issue or a Republican 
issue. It is an American issue. Our doctors, our teachers, our 
caregivers, our friends, and our families are Dreamers.
  They are American in every way, and they continue to make significant 
contributions to society and our economy. America is their home.
  H.R. 16 also protects those with TPS and DED. This is a humane, fair, 
and just approach so our immigrant communities can live in dignity.
  Rather than take a humane approach to bestow protections upon our 
Nation's Dreamers, our colleagues across the aisle would rather 
penalize them by introducing a package of bills that would do nothing 
to fix our broken immigration system.
  Instead, these bills only further criminalize those who already live 
in America--and take away their due process rights--to make it easier 
to deport them. These Republican bills are anti-immigrant. These bills 
will not make us safer.
  If you are undocumented and you are convicted of committing a crime, 
you are already deportable. Let's not burden our law and immigration 
enforcement officials, and, instead, allow them to focus their 
resources on finding those who seek to harm this country.
  Let's get serious about fixing our immigration system and stop with 
the gotcha messaging bills that do nothing to make us safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford) for his comments.
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule for this bill package of four measures, 
actually, which includes the No Immigration Benefits for Hamas 
Terrorists Act. I also express my strong support for securing our 
border.
  Now, I feel like I must start out by addressing the fallacy brought 
forth by

[[Page H286]]

our ranking member on the Rules Committee.
  This is not a political measure--on the part of the Republicans, 
anyway--if it had been, for a Presidential or congressional election 
year, why did we pass H.R. 2 last year?
  We passed it in May of last year, and it has been sitting across the 
hallway here on Chuck Schumer's desk since May.
  The Democrats have refused to secure our border, and an open border 
makes America vulnerable on the world stage.
  Biden's border crisis has turned every American community into a 
border community. Since Biden has taken office, more than 8.7 million 
illegal aliens have invaded our Nation.
  For 34 straight months, Mr. Speaker, monthly encounters have been at 
a higher rate than even the highest month during the Trump 
administration.
  This is a humanitarian crisis. They are bringing in fentanyl that is 
poisoning our young people. They are bringing human sex trafficking 
with them.
  Mr. Speaker, 100,000 children who have come across our border 
illegally are now unaccounted for in America. The rising number of 
illegal aliens is alarming. It is unacceptable.
  Just this fiscal year, 49 people on the terrorist watch list have 
been caught trying to enter the U.S., and there have been 1.7 million 
got-aways.
  How many of those are members of Hamas? Where are these people coming 
from? The simple answer is, we don't know. I am deeply concerned for 
our national safety, our national security.
  Recently, two high-ranking retired FBI members sent a letter to our 
Speaker and chairman warning that what could be coming to the United 
States of America is far much worse than what happened on 9/11.
  I read one paragraph from their letter: ``The threat we call out 
today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history, the U.S. has never 
suffered an invasion of the homeland, and, yet, one is unfolding now. 
Military-aged men from across the globe, many from countries or regions 
not friendly to the U.S., are landing in waves on our soil by the 
thousands--not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a 
plane but rather by foot across a border that has been accurately 
advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access 
granted.''

  That is what this President has done to our national security.
  President Ronald Reagan once said: ``A Nation that cannot control its 
borders is not a Nation.''
  That is the problem we are facing now.
  This President refuses to control our borders. He refuses to control 
the terrorists who are running freely, and our Nation is slowly 
withering away. We are at risk today. When will enough be enough for 
the Biden administration?
  The President has every means available--my good friend from Texas 
spelled those out--to secure the border now.
  It is time to demand that President Biden take action. We must 
protect our people. We are committed to ending this crisis and securing 
our border. The congressional Democrats and the White House apparently 
have other plans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for America, to vote for this rule, and 
to vote for this bill package.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you need a map to follow the logic of that 
last speaker. First of all, the border is not open. We have more people 
in detention right now than we have funding for. My Republican friends 
continuously vote against more funding, so figure that out.
  To the listening audience here, I am a little bit confused by the 
debate on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Missouri just 
talked about, oh, we are serious about securing our border. We passed 
H.R. 2.
  The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, opened up by saying the 
President has every tool he needs to fix this. Last night, we heard in 
the Rules Committee that we don't need to pass any more laws.
  Which is it? Do we need stronger laws, or do we need to do nothing? 
If we need to do nothing, why are we here?
  Let's be clear about the bills that we are dealing with here. These 
are messaging bills that are going nowhere in the United States Senate.
  I would say to my Republican friends that you might want to look up 
``Schoolhouse Rock'' and figure out how government works, but we have a 
divided government right now.
  My Republican friends barely control the House of Representatives. In 
fact, yesterday there were more Democrats voting than Republicans.
  The Senate is controlled by the Democratic Party, and we have a 
Democrat President. If you want to have a chance to get something done, 
if you want to move the ball, you have to work in a bipartisan way.
  The United States Senate seems to be doing that, and they are making 
progress on things that my friends in the House here have said they 
wanted time and time and time again. Now, Donald Trump calls, they 
don't want anything. They don't want anything.
  This is not serious, what my Republican friends are doing. Their 
messaging bills are going nowhere. They vote against funding for 
stronger border security on a regular basis here in the House. Then you 
have a negotiation going on in the Senate with some of the most 
conservative Senate Republicans.
  All of a sudden, because Trump doesn't want it, we don't want it. We 
don't need laws. If we don't need laws, why are we wasting our time 
here on the floor today? You can't have it both ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues 
to defeat the previous question and to support the American Dream and 
Promise Act.
  If extreme MAGA Republicans want a real bipartisan solution for our 
broken immigration system, the type of bill that the President has said 
he wants to sign, then they should sign up and support my American 
Dream and Promise Act.
  Today, our country is home to millions of Dreamers. They were brought 
to the United States as children and grew up here. In their heart, in 
their mind, and in their soul, they are Americans except on paper. This 
is their country. This is their home.
  If Congress does nothing, we will lose our neighbors, our family 
members, and our friends. We will lose fellow Americans.
  With the American Dream and Promise Act, House Democrats have a plan 
with bipartisan support to finally create a pathway for citizenship for 
Dreamers and immigrant families.
  Make no mistake: This is not a partisan issue. Over 70 percent of 
Americans favor a law providing permanent legal status to Dreamers.
  This is a real solution with support. The American Dream and Promise 
Act will have a life-changing effect on every single district in this 
country.
  Take it from me. I was born and raised in south Texas. I recognize 
the importance of securing our border to protect the integrity of our 
Nation.
  This set of bills does not do that. These bills spread racist tropes 
about immigrants. It is wasting valuable time and energy that should be 
going toward writing laws that would lead to real generational change.
  With my bill, the American Dream and Promise Act, we can create that 
generational change. Americans support Dreamers, and Dreamers support 
America. I am opposed to these bills, and I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the point that I made earlier that my 
Republican friends are not serious about governing or about getting 
anything done, I point out to people in this Chamber maybe something 
that they don't really know.
  I have served on the Rules Committee for a long time, and the Rules 
Committee used to be a place where people showed up to try to get 
things done, where we would discuss big and pressing issues facing the 
country, and where we would debate how each side thought these problems 
should be solved. We would pass consequential legislation to improve 
the lives of Americans.

  It has been difficult to be on the Rules Committee lately to just 
deal with messaging bills--bills that don't do anything, that don't 
mean anything,

[[Page H287]]

that don't help anybody, and that don't solve any problems.
  This is a Judiciary Committee bill that we are dealing with right 
now. I ask this question of my colleagues here in the House: Do you 
know how many bills the Judiciary Committee has brought before the 
Rules Committee that have become law in the last year?
  The answer to that question is zero. Zero.
  It seems like the Judiciary Committee is up in the Rules Committee 
every other day. Not a single Judiciary Committee bill that has come 
before the Rules Committee that has come to this floor has become law. 
That is absurd.
  Now, you may say I am cherry-picking, but do you know the last time 
the Rules Committee met on a bill that actually was brought to the 
floor that got signed into law?
  Eight months ago. That is when we met on the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act.
  Even that moved forward because Democrats came to the rescue and 
voted for the rule to avoid a debt ceiling disaster.
  That is 8 months, more than half of our time in this Congress, wasted 
on messaging bills. At this point, I am not sure if that is a bug or a 
feature for this Republican majority, but what is clear is this: None 
of these bills that we are talking about here today will address our 
border challenges.
  None of these bills that we are dealing with today are going to ever 
become law. Republicans don't really care because they don't want to do 
anything real to solve problems at the border.
  The economy is getting better. Their presumptive nominee for 
President is ethically challenged. He has more legal problems than--I 
don't even want to compare him to anybody. We have never seen anything 
like this before.
  He was just ordered to pay $83 million for defaming a woman who he 
sexually abused, and this is just the beginning.

                              {time}  1300

  They are not interested in solving problems or governing. What they 
are interested in is trying to hold on to a campaign issue. I am tired 
of it, the American people are tired of it, and frankly, it is just 
sad.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many 
more speakers he has?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the difference between Democrats and 
Republicans. Democrats want to work to get things done. We want to work 
with Republicans in a bipartisan way to fix our problems at the border. 
Republicans, well, let me just use their own words. Last night in the 
Rules Committee, we heard from the other side that we aren't going to 
fix the border crisis with laws. I mean, that is what was said in the 
Rules Committee last night.
  I mean, what the hell are we even doing here then?
  Why even pass any laws at all?
  Why try to fix any problems?
  Republicans say that Joe Biden and Democrats are single-handedly 
responsible for the crisis at the border. That is just not true. That 
is just not true. It is simply not true.
  Look at the facts. Democrats voted to increase border funding by 17 
percent. Democrats provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol 
agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at points of entry, and $230 
million for technology, like autonomous surveillance towers.
  Republicans--Republicans--voted ``no'' every single time. Why? It is 
simple. Because Trump calls the shots around here, and Trump wants a 
crisis at the border. Somehow he thinks it helps him politically.
  Unfortunately, there is not a lot of courage on the other side of the 
aisle in this House to stand up to the bully and to do what is right. 
In fact, we have our House leadership standing up and saying no to a 
deal that the most conservative Republicans in the other Chamber are 
saying is a good deal, is a tough deal. And they are saying no. Why? 
Because all of a sudden, Trump doesn't want it. How pathetic. How 
pathetic. What a cynical, rotten thing to do.
  This is a serious problem that requires a serious solution, but they 
don't want to solve it. They don't want any action to secure the 
border. That is their strategy for November.
  Well, guess what, it is going to look a lot less strategic when they 
lose the next election because the American people see through their BS 
and vote them out of office.
  I mean, we have an opportunity here to potentially do something that 
will actually address the problems at the border: something meaningful, 
not messaging bills that are going nowhere, not talking points, not 
press conferences where people have meltdowns, but actually do 
something meaningful. All they can say is no, no, because Trump doesn't 
want us to do it.
  You know, I don't know how we progress here. I am hoping that there 
are some sensible Republicans who will stand up to Trump and stand up 
to their leadership who seems to have caved on trying to work together. 
I point out, again, that we have a divided government. I wish the 
Democrats were in control of everything. I am sure my Republican 
friends wished the Republicans were in control of everything. But the 
fact of the matter is, they are not, and they continue to act like they 
are, but when they behave that way nothing gets done.
  So the way this is supposed to work is that we work across the aisle, 
we try to come up with some areas of commonality, and we move forward, 
and we work with the Senate, and we work with the White House. That is 
what the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats are doing right now.
  I mean, Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends: You are not in 
control of everything. You don't have a dictatorship--at least yet. I 
know that is what the former President would like, but that is not what 
we have right now. If we want to get something done, we are going to 
have to compromise. We are going to have to give and take. We have to 
listen to each other. We have to try to move something forward.
  For the life of me, I can't understand why we are wasting so much 
time coming to the floor with stuff that is going nowhere that serves 
no purpose, other than to get people all riled up and maybe continue to 
appeal to the worst instincts in people: hate, racism, and bigotry. 
Enough. Enough.
  Mr. Speaker, if they want to solve the problem, then we are willing 
to work with them. If they don't, then please go away.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered over in the Senate is a bill 
that sets a floor, not a ceiling, a bill that guarantees 2 million 
people illegally come into this country every year. Mr. Speaker, that 
is on top of the 1.2 million people that are admitted legally every 
year--and not to mention the people who come in under the radar. Yes, I 
am going to be against that bill, and I will be happy to join my friend 
from Massachusetts in a bipartisan fashion and vote against that 
legislation because it is bad legislation; not because someone else 
told me it is bad, but because I know it is bad, and my constituents 
know it is bad.
  When we were down in Eagle Pass, Texas, a few weeks ago with the 
Speaker of the House, the deputy chief of the Border Patrol spoke to us 
the first evening down there, and he said, we are faced with a raging 
flood. And when you are faced with that, it is not that I need bigger 
buckets, I need someone to turn the water off. So is there a way to 
turn the water off? And he told us there was.
  Simply reinstituting the remain in Mexico policy, the Migrant 
Protection Protocols that President Biden undid with an executive order 
on his first day in office, would reduce the flow by 70 percent and 
would allow our very beleaguered Customs and Border Protection and 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement the ability to actually maneuver 
and do what their job calls for; that is, to protect American citizens.

  As it stands right now with the massive ingress of people, all they 
can do is process people. It becomes a question of throughput. So that 
is not an answer, and don't pretend that it is because the American 
people see through that.

[[Page H288]]

  I will just address one other thing. I am not running for reelection. 
I am bulletproof. You can't hurt me. But I support the former President 
and his approach to border control because I saw it work for the 4 
years he was in office. He was the best President of the 21st century, 
and, yes, I would like to see him back in office; not because someone 
told me, but my constituents support the type of leadership that he 
provided for those 4 years.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, this country is being invaded at the 
southern border--invaded to the extent that Governor Greg Abbott in my 
home State of Texas has officially declared an invasion. This 
administration has done nothing to help, nothing to help Texas, and 
has, instead, decided to take Texas to court to sue Texas just for 
trying to get the smallest bit of relief for its citizens and for its 
law enforcement officers.
  The Republican majority has, once again, demonstrated that our agenda 
will be devoted to improving the lives of American citizens. Our 
governing majority will continue to focus on the issues that matter 
most to the American people: rising energy costs, sky-high inflation, 
rampant crime, and, yes, fixing our porous southern border.
  These are issues that the American voters rightfully demand their 
elected Representatives to address. The Republican majority is 
committed to solving the many crises that this President and the 
minority have inflicted on our Nation.
  Today, we begin the most basic duties of stopping and punishing 
criminals who come across our southern border illegally.
  I would like to thank Representative Juan Ciscomani from Arizona; 
Representative   Tom McClintock from California, with whom I serve on 
the Budget Committee; and Representative Barry Moore from Alabama, for 
their leadership on these important pieces of legislation.
  I, again, stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
bills, and I urge my fellow Members to support the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 980 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 16) to authorize the cancellation of removal and 
     adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill 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 the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 16.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The question is on ordering the 
previous question on the resolution.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On January 30, 2024, page H288, in the second column, the 
following appeared: move the previous question on the resolution. 
The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Murphy). The question is on adoption of the resolution.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: move the previous 
question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). 
The question is on ordering the previous question on the 
resolution.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  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.

                          ____________________