[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.

                          ____________________