[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 145 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5329-H5338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3724, ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE
EXCELLENCE ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4790,
GUIDING UNIFORM AND RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION
LIMITS ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5179, ANTI-BDS
LABELING ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5339, ROLL BACK ESG
TO INCREASE RETIREMENT EARNINGS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 5717, NO BAILOUT FOR SANCTUARY CITIES ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7909, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BY ILLEGAL ALIENS
ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 136, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``MULTIPOLLUTANT EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR
MODEL YEARS 2027 AND LATER LIGHT-DUTY AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES''
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1455 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1455
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. 3724) to amend the Higher Education Act of
1965 to prohibit recognized accrediting agencies and
associations from requiring, encouraging, or coercing
institutions of higher education to meet any political litmus
test or violate any right protected by the Constitution as a
condition of accreditation. 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
Education and the Workforce 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 Education and the Workforce now printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-49 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. 4790) to amend
the Federal securities laws with respect to the materiality
of disclosure requirements, to establish the Public Company
Advisory Committee, 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 Financial Services now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-48, modified by the
amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services 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 bill (H.R. 5179) to
require the maintenance of the country of origin markings for
imported goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5339) to amend
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to
specify requirements concerning the consideration of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, 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 Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 118-50 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as
[[Page H5330]]
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 Education and the Workforce or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. 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.
5717) to provide that sanctuary jurisdictions that provide
benefits to aliens who are present in the United States
without lawful status under the immigration laws are
ineligible for Federal funds intended to benefit such aliens.
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 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.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in part C of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such 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
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7909) to amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens
who have been convicted of or who have committed sex offenses
or domestic violence 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 118-47 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 136) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles''. 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 Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) be allowed to manage the
remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
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, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration
of seven pieces of legislation.
First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education
Act, to be considered under a structured rule.
Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic
Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.
Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans'
Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.
Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act,
under a closed rule.
The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by
Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation,
beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.
As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have
spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher
education under the Biden administration, where activism is often
prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.
These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have
seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting
terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.
Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of
protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their
students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide,
and it is our students who are paying the price.
This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of
America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning.
We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan
administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination
camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is
against everything our Founders intended.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of
Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First
Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for
academic freedom and expression.
Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view
or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.
This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R.
5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It
protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their
families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do
with the bottom line.
The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on
maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden-
Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American
workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk
investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this
Chamber.
In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of
legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that
fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when
voting on shareholder proposals.
Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a
comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.
Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an
ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers
and American businesses.
Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to
create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately
raising costs and limiting growth.
This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting
requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent,
and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.
[[Page H5331]]
I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling
Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.
I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary
Cities Act.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly
stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between
local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about
someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.
{time} 1230
We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible
challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety
is endangered.
Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing
unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.
We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master
class in how to not handle border security. This administration has
totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our
immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary
city spreads to other jurisdictions.
If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own
communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire
Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices
with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you
fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.
Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars
not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public
safety and our immigration law.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push
back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and
H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on
crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important
bills, 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 for
yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the
gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she
is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be
silenced.
The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who
shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words
stricken from the Congressional Record.
You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech
that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us
snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the
truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really
quite stunning.
Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this
time.
Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives
has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and
important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of
weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.
This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere.
It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.
The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually
working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing
something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix,
my Republican friends are doing nothing.
The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping
the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.
Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I
had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They
didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.
I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is
the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my
friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't
share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side
are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not
good.
Let me just give you a couple of examples.
Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a
good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of
working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that
in our schools.
Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They
want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite
define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.
Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that
works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we
are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out,
but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.
I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but
do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are
asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and
billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security
and Medicare?
Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about
strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not
Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the
Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their
Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.
Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence
against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after
immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it
could hurt survivors of domestic violence.
I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some
point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking
points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.
It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before,
calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.
Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans
to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this
week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going
anywhere.
The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting
people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme
members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical
idea.
None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are,
playing these absurd, ridiculous games.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is because the average family of
four is paying over $17,000 more per year thanks to the policies of the
Biden-Harris administration and their allies in Congress. In 3\1/2\
years, their policies and regulations have been unleashed into every
aspect of our lives.
For example, on top of that $17,000 more that American families are
having to pay each year, now the Biden-Harris administration's EPA
expects that family to cough up another $10,000 for an electric
vehicle. The House Republicans today will repeal this ridiculous
regulation with the passage of a joint resolution under this rule.
It is not just consumer goods that are more expensive. Retirement is
increasingly out of reach because of the Biden-Harris administration
and their policies and what they have injected into our capital markets
and retirement plans. The American family will not care how much their
retirement fund
[[Page H5332]]
promoted ESG or DEI when they need to push off their retirement for
years under this economy.
House Republicans will refocus the financial markets and retirement
funds away from politics and toward maximizing investment returns.
Maximizing shareholder value seems like a concept that everyone should
be for.
Finally, I will touch on two important pieces of legislation under
this rule that are affecting Texans, the first of which is the Violence
Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. This bill makes it crystal clear
in U.S. law that illegal aliens who commit domestic violence are both
deportable and inadmissible in this country.
We have a border czar. You wouldn't know it because of what has been
happening, but we have a border czar. We have a Secretary of Homeland
Security who has refused to take the actions necessary to protect
American citizens. Why they have neglected American citizens, I cannot
tell you. Perhaps the Democrats can tell you.
Mr. Speaker, even individuals who commit domestic crimes should be
deportable and inadmissible to the country.
Another bill ensures that lax enforcement of immigration law, which
has become the hallmark of the Biden-Harris administration, does not
extend to criminal domestic conduct.
Speaking of lax enforcement, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act
makes it crystal clear that no State or local government that made a
conscious choice to disregard Federal immigration law will receive
Federal funds to do so.
Sanctuary cities perpetuate the crisis at our border, a crisis that
my State knows all too well. The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act
ensures that taxpayers won't be on the hook for the conscious choices
of sanctuary cities.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules
Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked
about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking
about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.
If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that
were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought
not to be ``my way or the highway.''
These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases.
Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not
serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general.
I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in
history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution:
five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no
amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and
want to improve a bill, too bad.
This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the
Republicans are turning this place into.
With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today,
Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate.
With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress--
106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of
the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have
been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first
by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.
The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules
Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules
Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular
order and more amendments, and more debate.
Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the
Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process,
but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise,
and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.
During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed
rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker
McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican
leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the
floor by the Republican majority.
By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked
Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an
amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican
border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at
ports of entry.
Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect
food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They
have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members'
amendments.
Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked
by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing
the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have
been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored
or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.
When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice,
but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by
your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules
Republicans.
I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate
their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get
amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?
Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They
want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.
Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where
democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the
Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again,
106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful
statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican
majority.
{time} 1245
Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it.
Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the
United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were
fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes
while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with
Democrats.
There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they
kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the
brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail
them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the
Rules Committee that ever became law.
I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent,
dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have
also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well
done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3
more months of this. God help us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking
member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican
leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with
92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat-
controlled Senate where they die.
The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he
knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules
Committee was no bastion of an open process.
For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a
better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the
Member rattled off.
It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has
reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress.
Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed
rules than when he had the gavel.
Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no
amendments
[[Page H5333]]
were offered, making the rule closed by definition.
Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the
same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but
with significantly more bills offered.
I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and
abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style
amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had
the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.
Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't
claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.
We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the
Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American
people from unelected bureaucrats.
We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which
traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The
ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.
While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling
Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority
amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he
was calling the shots.
While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the
way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique
difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with
in moving the majority's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina
(Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank and appreciate Mrs. Houchin for
putting forward these bills.
I am glad there are citizens up here listening to the two different
points of view. We are totally different.
Some of the things that you said in Rules yesterday, Mr. McGovern,
the last 3--well, 4 years under the Biden, czar Harris administration
have wrecked this country.
You mentioned yesterday, and I brought this up in Rules, empathy for
children. Where is the empathy for the 300,000 that this administration
is letting in this country unaccompanied, God knows what is happening
to them, of the 15 million that are coming in here? How is that working
for America?
How is it working for America when you are taking the side of the
criminal and putting handcuffs on the policemen through your defund
police activity?
The actions of this administration on tax cuts--tax, tax, tax. You
want the Federal Government to tell these people where to spend their
money. We are not having it.
The reason the amendments aren't made in order, they are dumb. Some
of them are good, but most of them are dumb, and they are antifreedom
is the best word I can say.
I rise today in support of the rule to provide consideration for
bills that combat the administration's woke policies that you are
forcing on businesses.
I am thrilled the rule contained a package of financial service
bills. You are right; we shouldn't have to protect them. It should be
common sense, but it is not from the Democratic Party.
This package includes my bill, the Businesses Over Activists Act. As
Republicans, we believe in limited government letting us spend our
money and not letting unelected bureaucrats spend our money.
Under the Exchange Act, the ability of the Securities and Exchange
Commission to oversee proxy solicitation is very limited.
Every regulation has been weaponized against the very businesses that
are paying the taxes to support this country.
As far as my particular bill, Congress never granted the SEC
authority to make it mandatory for companies to include shareholder
proposals in their corporate proxy statements.
This legislation reaffirms the proper role of the SEC and ensures
that it cannot exceed its authority by compelling companies to include
certain shareholder proposals against their will.
A lot of things we are having to combat is per the Constitution that
you are wanting to do away with. We believe in the Constitution. We
believe in freedom. We believe in limited government.
This package of bills spells this out and protects our God-given
rights that we shouldn't have to fight for that your party is wanting
to do away with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from
South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different
values.
I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't
believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest
country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to
help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as
a ``wrecked country.''
Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed
to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a
more open process.
I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him
this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.
By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected
as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.
I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them
as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list
of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th
Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
list of closed rules, 118th congress
1. H. Res. 5, H.R. 23--Family and Small Business Taxpayer
Protection Act;
2. H. Res. 5, H.R. 29--Border Safety and Security Act of
2023;
3. H. Res. 5, H.R. 22--Protecting America's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve from China Act;
4. H. Res. 5, H.R. 27--Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act;
5. H. Res. 5, H.R. 28--Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act;
6. H. Res. 5, H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023;
7. H. Res. 5, H.R. 26--Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act;
8. H. Res. 5. H. Res. 11--Establishing the Select Committee
on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and
the Chinese Communist Party;
9. H. Res. 5, H. Res. 12--Establishing a Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on
the Judiciary;
10. H. Res. 5, H. Con. Res. 5--Expressing support for the
Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts
to defend or dismantle law enforcement agencies;
11. H. Res. 5, H. Con. Res. 3--Expressing the sense of
Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life
facilities, groups, and churches;
12. H. Res. 75, H.J. Res. 7--Relating to a national
emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020;
13. H. Res 75, H.R. 139--Stopping Home Office Work's
Unproductive Problems (SHOW UP) Act of 2023;
14. H. Res 75, H.R. 382--Pandemic is Over Act;
15. H. Res. 75, H R. 497--Freedom for Health Care Workers
Act;
16. H. Res. 83, H. Con. Res. 9--Denouncing the horrors of
socialism;
17. H. Res. 83, H. Res. 76--Removing a certain Member from
a certain standing committee of the House;
18. H. Res. 97, H.J. Res. 24--Disapproving the action of
the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022;
19. H. Res. 97, H.J. Res. 26--Disapproving the action of
the District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised
Criminal Code Act of 2022;
20. H. Res. 166, H.J. Res. 30--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to
``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and
Exercising Shareholder Rights'';
21. H. Res. 199, S. 619--COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023;
22. H. Res. 199, H.J. Res. 27--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters
of the United States' '';
23. H. Res. 298, H.J. Res 42--Disapproving the action of
the District of Columbia Council in approving the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022;
[[Page H5334]]
24. H. Res. 327, H.R. 2811--Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023;
25. H. Res. 327, H.J. Res. 39--Disapproving the rule
submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to
``Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and
Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation
10414'';
26. H. Res 383, H.R. 2--Secure the Border Act of 2023;
27. H. Res. 383, H.R. 1163--Protecting Taxpayers and
Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act;
28. H. Res. 429, H.J. Res. 45--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating
to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans'';
29. H. Res. 429, H.J. Res 11--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards'';
30. H. Res. 456, H.R. 3746--Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2023;
31. H. Res. 495, H.J. Res. 44--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives relating to ``Factoring Criteria for
Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces''';
32. H. Res. 524, H. Res. 461--Condemning the use of
elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter
for aliens who are not admitted to the United States;
H. Res. 614, S.J. Res. 9--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, USC, of the rule
submitted by the USFWS relating to ``Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken;
Threatened Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern
Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the
Southern Distinct Population Segment'';
34. H. Res. 6l4, S.J. Res. 24--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared
Bat'';
35. H. Res. 680, H.R. 1435--Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act;
36. H. Res. 681, H.R. 1435--Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act;
37. H. Res. 699, H. Res. 684--Condemning the actions of
Governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, for
subverting the Second Amendment to the Constitution and
depriving the citizens of New Mexico of their right to bear
arms;
38. H. Res. 699, H.R. 5525--Continuing Appropriations and
Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024;
39. H Res. 712, H. Res. 684--Condemning the actions of
Governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, for
subverting the Second Amendment to the Constitution and
depriving the citizens of New Mexico of their right to bear
arms;
40. H. Res. 730, H.R. 5692--Ukraine Security Assistance and
Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024;
41. H. Res. 741, H.R. 5525--Continuing Appropriations and
Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024;
42. H. Res. 756, H.R. 4364--Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2024;
43. H. Res. 838, H.R. 6126--Israel Security Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2024;
44. H. Res. 869, H. R. 5961--No Funds for Iranian Terrorism
Act;
45. H. Res. 891, S.J. Res. 32--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection relating to Small Business Lending Under the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B);
46. H. Res. 906, H.J. Res. 88--Providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating
to Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL) Program;
47. H. Res. 922, H.R. 357--Ensuring Accountability in
Agency Rulemaking Act;
48. H. Res. 947, 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'';
49. H. Res. 947, 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'';
50. H. Res. 969, H.R. 6914--Pregnant Students' Rights Act;
51. H. Res. 969, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant and
Parenting Women and Families Act;
52. H. Res. 969, H. Res. 957--Denouncing the Biden
administration's open-borders policies, condemning the
national security and public safety crisis along the
southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his
administration's open-borders policies;
53. H. Res. 994, H.R. 7160--SALT Marriage Penalty
Elimination Act;
54. H. Res 994, H. Res 987--Denouncing the harmful, anti-
American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for
other purposes;
55. H. Res. 996, H. Res. 863--Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas
Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high cnmes and
misdemeanors;
56. H. Res. 1009, H R. 7176--Unlocking our Domestic LNG
Potential Act of 2024;
57. H. Res. 1052, H.R. 7511--Laken Riley Act;
58. H. Res. 1071, H. Res. 1065--Denouncing the Biden
administration's immigration policies;
59. H. Res. 1085, H.R. 6009--Restoring American Energy
Dominance Act;
60. H. Res. 1085, H.R. 1121--Protecting American Energy
Production Act;
61. H. Res. 1085, H.R. 1023--To repeal section 134 of the
Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund.
[Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act];
62. H. Res. 1085, H. Con. Res. 86--Expressing the sense of
Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United
States economy;
63. H. Res. 1085, H. Res. 987--Denouncing the harmful,
anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration,
and for other purposes;
64. H. Res. 1125, H.R 529--Extending Limits of U.S. Customs
Waters Act;
65. H. Res. 1125, H. Res. 1112--Denouncing the Biden
administration's immigration policies;
66. H. Res. 1125, H. Res. 1117--Opposing efforts to place
one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza;
67. H. Res. 1137, H.R. 529--Extending Limits of U.S.
Customs Waters Act;
68. H. Res. 1137, H. Res. 1112--Denouncing the Biden
administration's immigration policies;
69. H. Res. 1137, H. Res. 1117--Opposing efforts to place
one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza;
70. H. Res. 1149, H.R. 6323--Iran Counterterrorism Act of
2023;
71. H. Res. 1149, H. Res. 1143--Condemning Iran's
unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel;
72. H. Res. 1149, H.R. 4691--Iran Sanctions Relief Review
Act of 2023;
73. H. Res. 1149, H.R. 5947--To provide for the rescission
of certain waivers and licenses relating to Iran, and for
other purposes;
74. H. Res. 1149, H.R. 6046--Standing Against Houthi
Aggression Act;
75. H. Res. 1160, H.R. 8034--Israel Security Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2024;
76. H. Res. 1173, H.R. 3397--Western Economic Security
Today Act of 2024;
77. H. Res. 1173, H.R. 3195--Superior National Forest
Restoration Act;
78. H. Res. 1173. H.R. 2925--Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
of 2024;
79. H. Res. 1173, H.R. 615--Protecting Access for Hunters
and Anglers Act of 2023;
80. H. Res. 1173, H.R. 764--Trust the Science Act;
81. H. Res. 1173, H.R. 6090--Antisemitism Awareness Act of
2023;
82. H. Res. 1194, H.R. 7109--Equal Representation Act;
83. H. Res. 1194, H.J. Res. 109--Providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to Staff Accounting Bulletin No.
121;
84. H. Res. 1194, H.R. 2925--Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
of 2024;
85. H. Res. 1227, H.R. 354--LEOSA Reform Act;
86. H. Res. 1227, H.R. 7530--CRIMES Act of 2024;
87. H. Res. 1227, H.R. 7581--Improving Law Enforcement
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act of 2024;
88. H. Res. 1227, H. Res. 1210--Condemning the Biden border
crisis and the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers
face as a result;
89. H. Res. 1227, H. Res. 1213--A resolution regarding
violence against law enforcement officers;
90. H. Res. 1227, H.R. 8369--Israel Security Assistance
Support Act;
91. H. Res. 1243, H.R. 192--To prohibit individuals who are
not citizens from voting in elections in the District of
Columbia;
92. H. Res. 1269, H.R. 8282--To impose sanctions with
respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any
effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any
protected person of the United States and its allies;
93. H. Res. 1287, H. Res. 1292--Report to accompany the
Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives
Find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in
Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena
Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary;
94. H. Res. 1341, H.R. 8281--Safeguard American Voter
Eligibility Act;
95. H. Res. 1341, H.J. Res. 165--Providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex
in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Financial Assistance;
96. H. Res. 1341, H.R. 7700--Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher
Standards Act;
97. H. Res. 1341, H.R. 7637--Refrigerator Freedom Act;
98. H. Res. 1376, H. Res. 1371--Strongly condemning the
Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's,
failure to secure the United States border;
99. H. Res. 1430, H.R. 9494--Continuing Appropriations and
Other Measures;
100. H. Res. 1430, H.R. 7980--End Chinese Dominance of
Electric Vehicles in America Act;
[[Page H5335]]
101. H. Res. 1430, H.R. 9456--Protecting American
Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024;
102. H. Res. 1455, H.R. 4790--Prioritizing Economic Growth
Over Woke Policies Act;
103. H. Res. 1455, H.R. 5179--Anti-BDS Labeling Act;
104. H. Res. 1455, H.R. 5339--Protecting Americans'
Investments from Woke Policies Act;
105. H. Res. 1455, H.R. 7909--Violence Against Women by
Illegal Aliens Act; and
106. H. Res. 1455, H.J. Res. 136--Providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions
Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles''.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed
rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the
House floor.
These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to
develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an
up-or-down vote.
They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling
of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment
authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports
of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.
Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was
my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very
good idea.
They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health
information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting
out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few
amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied
amendments.
They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a
debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their
structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.
Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were
either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for
consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from
getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in
politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals
with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings
to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we
know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their
jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve 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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5717,
the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.
I do have to comment that the ranking member and I sit on the Rules
Committee, and the ranking member and I were there last night, and we
are here again on the floor together today, and all I hear is
complaining.
I don't hear alternatives. I hear about how bad the amendment process
is, that their amendments aren't made in order, but I haven't heard
them really talk about the alternatives.
What are they proposing?
Are there alternatives to what we are doing?
What would they do differently? Instead, we hear complaining.
I do want to talk about H.R. 5717. This bill prohibits funds to any
sanctuary State or sanctuary city if those funds are being used to
benefit illegal immigrants.
That seems like common sense to me and to my constituents. We should
not spend American tax dollars to help States and cities that are
violating U.S. law so they can turn around and dole out those dollars
to illegal immigrants; sometimes those benefits are even more generous
than those our own citizens receive.
I do want to correct something that Ranking Member Nadler said last
night in the Rules Committee. He said that this bill could prohibit
Federal funds like COPS grants and Byrne-JAG Grants from going to law
enforcement officers.
I want to state this clearly. That is just not true. Not only are
police departments not qualifying jurisdictions under this bill, but
the bill applies only to funds being used to provide benefits to
illegal immigrants. Let me tell you. Using funds to arrest and detain
illegal immigrants is not to their benefit, nor is it part of this
bill.
This is just an attempt to distract from the fact that the Biden-
Harris administration has created chaos in communities across this
country.
Yet, rather than help hardworking Americans, they want to take your
tax dollars to pay for free flights, free cell phones, and free hotel
stays. This bill puts an end to this waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives.
That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.
I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to
offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with
children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have
adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.
My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get
to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.
We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but
here is another alternative. 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 of 2023.
Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at
immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to
research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there
has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and
promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.
Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role
in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need
researchers to tell us this.
We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single
day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders,
and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their
home.
These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical
parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as
children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant
them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be
done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but
unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that
actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the
message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this
community and that we value their many contributions that make this
country a better place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into 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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Speaker, we are only 12 days away from a potential
government shutdown, and yet here we are debating yet another slate of
unserious Republican policies, so-called antiwoke bills.
Instead of prioritizing legislation to improve the lives of the
American people, they are set on wasting our time with political games.
Instead of working on a bipartisan appropriations process with
Democrats to keep our government open, the Republican Party is focused
on pushing elements of Trump's Project 2025, a blueprint for a radical
and draconian
[[Page H5336]]
restructuring of our country that includes eliminating many of our
freedoms.
They show us over and over that their party is gripped by troubling
extremism. Their incessant dangerous rhetoric about immigrants is but
one example of this extremism.
My Democratic colleagues and I remain focused and committed to real
solutions that improve our country and our economy, which is why if we
defeat the previous question, we will come together to pass meaningful,
life-changing legislation, like the American Dream and Promise Act, a
commonsense bill that has bipartisan support.
Despite high public support for Dreamers, who were brought to the
country as children and are proud to call the United States home,
Dreamers had the rug pulled out from under them in 2017 when former
President Donald Trump abruptly terminated the DACA program. Since
then, Dreamers and their families have been caught up in a court
battle, not just for the fate of the program but for their future.
The American Dream and Promise Act could put an end to years of fear
and uncertainty for Dreamers as well as TPS and DED recipients and
countless mixed-status families who dread the day their loved one may
no longer be here.
This bill is a vital step toward providing dignity, stability, and
security for those individuals who for years have contributed to our
communities, our economy, and our American story.
I urge my colleagues to use our limited time here in Washington,
D.C., on real solutions. Help us defeat the previous question so we can
instead do real work that makes a real impact, like the American Dream
and Promise Act.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of
defeating the previous question.
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this week we find ourselves
confronted with a series of bills brought by our Republican colleagues
that are not only misguided but also villainize immigrant communities.
These proposals attempt to further criminalize those who are seeking
a better life and threaten to withhold essential Federal funds from
cities like Chicago that have policies designed to support the
inclusion, safety, and justice of all regardless of immigration status.
Victims of domestic violence will be even more fearful of coming
forward if they fear being reported to immigration authorities.
Let me be clear: Our immigration system is broken, and simply
doubling down on punitive measures will not solve the problem. We need
comprehensive solutions that recognize the humanity of those seeking
refuge and opportunity in this great Nation.
Instead of fostering an environment of understanding and compassion,
these bills promote fear and division.
That brings me to a crucial piece of legislation that deserves our
immediate attention, the Dream and Promise Act. This bill is a beacon
of hope for Dreamers and those with temporary protective status,
providing them with a pathway to citizenship.
These young people, many of whom have known no other country but
ours, are an integral part of our communities and our economy. They are
students, teachers, healthcare workers, and leaders who contribute to
our Nation's prosperity. It is time that we acknowledge their
contributions and ensure that they can live without fear of
deportation.
By prioritizing the Dream and Promise Act, we can send a clear
message that we value the lives and aspirations of those who call
America home.
I urge my colleagues to reject harmful immigration bills on the floor
this week and instead join me in championing the Dream and Promise Act.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That
is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City,
under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies
between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and
correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited
circumstances.
However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York
City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's
care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy
Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''
For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public
safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public
safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the
crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of
sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even
more difficult.
H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other
side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to
cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal
funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to
sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse
incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.
H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the
Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by
prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare
costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such
municipalities.
Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be
funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law.
No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and
ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about
immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the
most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from
Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has
some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I
cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down,
told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a
vote.
They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I
mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented
Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Molinaro). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the National Institute of Justice, Sept. 12, 2024]
Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate
Analysis of Texas arrest records indicates a consistent
trend across violent, drug, property, and traffic offenses
between 2012 and 2018.
An NIJ-funded study examining data from the Texas
Department of Public Safety estimated the rate at which
undocumented immigrants are arrested for committing crimes.
The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at
less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for
violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born
citizens for property crimes.
The question of how often undocumented immigrants commit
crimes is not easy to answer. Most previous research on crime
commission by immigrant populations has been unable to
differentiate undocumented immigrants from documented
immigrants. As a result, most studies treat all immigrants as
a uniform group, regardless of whether they are in the
country legally.
The estimates in this study come from Texas criminal
records that include the immigration status of everyone
arrested in the state from 2012 to 2018. These data enabled
researchers to separate arrests for crimes committed by
undocumented immigrants from those committed by documented
immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens. (For more detail on
the study's data sources and methodology, see the sidebar
``What Makes the Texas Data Unique?'')
The researchers tracked these three groups' arrest rates
across seven years (2012-2018) and examined specific types of
crime, including homicides and other violent crimes. They
used these arrest rates as proxies for the rates of crime
commission for the
[[Page H5337]]
three groups. It should be noted that arrest is a commonly
used, but imperfect measure of crime that in part reflects
law enforcement activity rather than actual offending rates.
During this time, undocumented immigrants had the lowest
offending rates overall for both total felony crime (see
exhibit 1) and violent felony crime (see exhibit 2) compared
to other groups. U.S.-born citizens had the highest offending
rates overall for most crime types, with documented
immigrants generally falling between the other two groups.
Exhibit 1. Total felony crime offending rates in Texas for
U.S.-born citizens, documented immigrants, and undocumented
immigrants
Exhibit 2. Violent felony crime offending rates in Texas
for U.S.-born citizens, documented immigrants, and
undocumented immigrants
Researchers also looked specifically at homicide arrest
trends. These rates tend to fluctuate more than the overall
violent crime arrest rates because murders are relatively
rare compared to other crimes. In addition, a large share of
homicides go unsolved. Still, undocumented immigrants had the
lowest homicide arrest rates throughout the entire study
period, averaging less than half the rate at which U.S.-born
citizens were arrested for homicide. (The homicide rate for
documented immigrants fluctuated. Sometimes it was higher
than the rate for U.S.-born citizens and sometimes it was
lower.)
Every other violent and property crime type the researchers
examined followed the same general pattern. The offending
rates of undocumented immigrants were consistently lower than
both U.S.-born citizens and documented immigrants for
assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, theft, and arson
For drug offenses, too, undocumented immigrants were less
than half as likely to be arrested as native-born U.S.
citizens. Moreover, the drug crime arrest rate for the
undocumented population held steady throughout the seven
years of data, while the rate for native-born citizens
increased almost 30% during that time. As a result,
undocumented immigrants had a smaller share of arrests for
drug crimes in 2018 than they had in 2012.
Finally, the researchers conducted statistical tests to
determine whether the share of crimes committed by
undocumented immigrants had increased for any offense types
between 2012 and 2018. They concluded, ``There is no evidence
that the prevalence of undocumented immigrant crime has grown
for any category.'' As with drug offenses, evidence suggests
the share of property and traffic crimes committed by
undocumented immigrants decreased or remained close to
constant throughout the period.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful
rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us
to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply
not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely,
not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent
crime.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in
Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the CATO Institute, Mar. 29, 2019]
Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates
(By Alex Nowrasteh and Andrew C. Forrester)
Florida state Senator Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota) introduced a
bill (SB 168) earlier this year to ban so-called sanctuary
jurisdictions in Florida and require local governments to
cooperate fully with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). A sanctuary jurisdiction is any state or local
government that has a policy to comply with fewer than 100
percent of ICE detainers, which are ICE requests for the
local government to release an arrested or imprisoned person
into ICE custody for deportation. Local and state governments
still prosecute illegal immigrants for crimes in sanctuary
jurisdictions, but they only turn some illegal immigrants
over to ICE and uniformly if they are charged with or
convicted of serious crimes.
The complaint over sanctuary jurisdictions is that they
result in increased crime, but the limited research on the
topic finds no increase in crime in sanctuary jurisdictions
relative to non-sanctuary jurisdictions. Regardless, the
methods employed in that paper, the potential for sample
selection bias, and the poor quality of national crime data
have impeded research into how sanctuary jurisdictions impact
crime.
Regardless, we decided to do our best in looking at how
sanctuary jurisdiction policies affect crime in Florida.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Clay and
Alachua counties in Florida will not honor ICE detainers
without a judicial order or a criminal warrant and their
policies were enacted in December 2014 and September 2015,
respectively.
To compare whether the adoption of anti-detainer sanctuary
policies had an impact on crime in Alachua and Clay Counties,
we draw on crime data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR) Return A file. The Return A is the gold standard in
crime data in the economics and criminal justice literature.
Since these data are provided at the reporting agency level,
we aggregate the crime counts up to the county-year level to
reflect the extent of geographic coverage for each anti-
detainer policy. As a basis for comparison, we identify
counties neighboring Alachua and Clay as counterfactual
counties using the county adjacency file from the National
Bureau for Economic Research. We then compute county crime
rates per 100,000 to compare crime rates across counties. For
illustrative purposes, we compute an ``adjacent counties''
counterfactual crime rate as the sum of all crimes in
surrounding counties normalized by their combined population.
Figure 1 shows that the crime rates in Clay and Alachua
counties have fallen just like in their neighboring counties,
except for Baker County, from 2010 through 2017. If sanctuary
policies in Clay and Alachua counties affected crime rates,
there is no obvious indication of that in Figure 1.
Figure 2 displays the crime rates in Alachua County
relative to its neighboring counties before after the
sanctuary policy was enacted. The crime rates were roughly
parallel before the enactment of the sanctuary policy and
stayed parallel afterward, meaning that the change in policy
likely had no effect on crime rates. The results look nearly
identical if trends in property or violent crime rates are
compared separately.
Figure 3 displays the crime rates in Clay County relative
to neighboring counties. The crime rates were roughly
parallel before Clay County enacted its sanctuary policy and
remained roughly parallel afterward. Again, it looks as if
the enactment of a sanctuary policy in Clay County had no
effect on crime. More time after the enactment of the
sanctuary policies and more rigorous statistical methods are
required to fully analyze these effects for both Clay and
Alachua Counties, but Figures 2 and 3 are convincing on their
own. The results look nearly identical if trends in property
or violent crime rates are compared separately.
The small numbers of non-citizens in Alachua and Clay
counties could explain why there was no effect on crime. In
2017, only 5.2 percent of Alachua County's population were
non-citizens and 2.5 percent of Clay County's population were
non-citizens. In different jurisdictions like Miami Dade
County, where 23.3 percent of the population were non-
citizens in 2017, the effect of sanctuary city policies might
be different although there is no evidence of that during the
brief period when it had a sanctuary policy.
SB 168 was originally paired with a bill that would have
mandated E-Verify on the state level. E-Verify is a
government electronic eligibility for employment verification
system where employers run the identity information of new
hires against government databases to see if they are legally
able to work. The goal of E-Verify is to exclude illegal
immigrants from the workforce. E-Verify doesn't work well,
but it looks to have increased crime in Arizona when that
state government mandated it for all new hire. Although SB
168 will have no effect on crime in Florida, at least the
legislature ditched its effort to mandate E-Verify as that
may well have increased crime.
Florida currently has only two sanctuary jurisdictions
according to the Center for Immigration Studies and is
unlikely to have many more in coming years. Furthermore,
crime rates in those counties did not rise relative to
neighboring counties after they adopted their sanctuary
policies. The effect of sanctuary policies on local crime
rates is a subject screaming for more research, but the
evidence so far shows that sanctuary policies don't affect
crime in Florida.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in
Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in
more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to
Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans
blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I
just want people to appreciate this.
An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees,
they blocked it.
They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations
before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their
subsistence resources.
An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town
police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health
support, and training they need to protect themselves and their
communities, they blocked that, too.
They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency
care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.
Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas,
but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being
debated unless they are afraid they would pass?
[[Page H5338]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may
be someone else.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want
everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.
Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too
revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor,
according to this Republican majority:
An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to
transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment
training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does
that?
They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary
restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole
milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it.
That was blocked.
They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our
domestic energy prices to increase.
I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our
differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then
have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans
who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on
the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record-
breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting
fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have
something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas
are woke is crazy.
There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record-
breaking number, but much more important is what that number
represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I
highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it
woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training
to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that
woke?
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid
of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote
``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes.
This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the
people the Republicans represent.
Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish
instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business.
For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government
shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their
obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into
everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential
nominee.
Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different
things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr.
Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President and nominees for
the Office of President.
{time} 1315
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American
people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless,
woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even
Americans' retirement accounts.
The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted
in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety,
and increasing drug overdose deaths.
With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the
American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure
our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free
markets.
The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout
for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately
make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration
has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle would support these important bills.
I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and
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. 1455 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 8. 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 16.
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 are postponed.
____________________