VA Employee Fairness Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1518 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1518, providing for consideration of four measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of S. 3905 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and a motion to commit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4003 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a motion to commit.

Fourth, the rule provides for consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 1437. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment with a House amendment and provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule also deems passage of a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2617 with a House amendment.

The rule further deems passage of H. Con. Res. 124 and H. Res. 1516.

Lastly, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from December 12 to December 15. The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on December 12 may be postponed through December 15.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of the 117th Congress, we are working this week to pass legislation that deserves to make it across the finish line before the end of the year.

First, the VA Employee Fairness Act. The healthcare workers at VA medical centers are exceptional at what they do serving our veterans. Many of them are veterans themselves. They deserve the same rights as their counterparts outside of the VA system to collectively bargain.

In today's world, the balance of power is disproportionately skewed towards employers over employees.

As a former union member and a small business owner myself, and as the current chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions subcommittee, I can think of no better way to honor these workers and the people they serve, who we all respect and honor, than to provide them the tools to empower them to have a voice in this important American workplace.

From our national security to the regulation of prescription drugs, the Federal Government relies on services of contractors and consultants to provide for the American people. It is critical that we know that these contractors are working in the best interest of the American people.

Unfortunately, the current Federal acquisition process allows bad actors to slip through the cracks without disclosing their potential conflicts of interest.

As a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I am proud of

the work that the committee has done to investigate McKinsey & Company for this very reason. This contractor--one of the oldest and most prestigious consulting firms in the world--was advising the FDA on the safety and efficacy of prescription pain medications at the same time the very same consultants were also advising Purdue Pharma on how to ``turbocharge'' sales of OxyContin, a major driver of the opioid epidemic.

While the McKinsey scandal shined a light on organizational conflicts of interest, the issue itself is not new. The Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would require Federal contractors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before they are awarded a Federal contract to ensure they are effectively serving the taxpayers. In the Senate it was bipartisan, and it should pass without objection and without delay.

Also included in today's rule is the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act, which would direct the Department of Justice to develop trainings on alternatives to the use of force and safely to respond to an individual experiencing a mental health, behavioral health, or suicidal crisis. We shouldn't even have to be including this bill in the rule, but unfortunately, partisan politics caused it to need to be reconsidered this week.

On this topic, I am proud that the district I represent is leading the way with an initiative we call A3, anyone, anywhere, anytime. This program connects people in need of mental health support that is outside the police system to help respond to the emergency while simultaneously allowing the police to focus on more appropriate police matters.

This was a long, developed partnership between our behavioral health departments and our local law enforcement, which support it very strongly, and is working to protect the public.

Finally, the rule includes a 1-week continuing resolution. Appropriators are hard at work to come to a year-long agreement over spending, and they need an extra week to finalize it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity this week to make transformative changes with these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an ABC news piece titled: ``Lawmakers aim to strengthen transparency in the lucrative--and murky--Federal contracting process.''

[From ABC News]

Lawmakers Aim To Strengthen Transparency in the Lucrative--and Murky--

Federal, Contracting Process

(By Soo Rin Kim)

A bipartisan coalition of senators introduced legislation

on Monday meant to improve transparency in the highly

competitive and notoriously murky federal contracting

process, taking aim at companies that accept lucrative work

from government agencies without having to disclose potential

conflicts of interest

The bill, called the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of

Interest in Federal Acquisition Act would seek to mitigate

conflict-of-interest concerns by forcing contractors to

``disclose other parts of their business that conflict with

the work they are bidding to perform for the government,''

according to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., chairman of the

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

``If we don't know whether [federal contractors] are

serving other, potentially conflicting interest, we can't be

confident that Americans are getting exactly what they pay

for,'' said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a cosponsor of the

bill.

For many American companies, federal contracts represent a

crucial source of revenue, as well as visibility and

credibility. Firms from every major business sector compete

for this work, and winners often execute their end of the

agreement while pursuing outside business opportunities--

which sometime overlap with their frederal contracts.

While existing rules stipulate that government agencies

assess potential conflicts of interest before determining

contract winners, watchdogs say the process remains opaque.

``Based on current federal contract regulations, agencies

cannot always discern whether government contractors have

business relationships with foreign governments and private

entities that could create a conflict of interest,'' said

Noah Bookbinder, president of the nonprofit government

watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in

Washington.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the government ethics

watchdog Project on Government Oversight, warned that

``without more guidance, organizational conflicts of interest

can result in unfair competitive advantages and biased

contract awards--both of which compromise the impartiality of

the federal government and the integrity of the contracting

process.''

In a press release announcing the new legislation,

lawmakers cited reporting in ProPublica that raised conflict-

of-interest questions about consulting giant McKinsey &

Company's recent work for the Food and Drug Administration.

ProPublica reported that in at least one FDA contract,

McKinsey

allegedly failed to disclose its conflicts of interest with

corporate pharmaceutical clients despite its contract with

the agency obligating the firm to do so.

According to documents obtained by ProPublica, McKinsey

allegedly advised the FDA's drug-regulation division for more

than a decade while simultaneously accepting work from major

pharmaceutical companies. In some cases, according to

ProPublica, McKinsey helped those clients navigate FDA

regulations while advising the FDA on how to strengthen

regulations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., said McKinsey's handling of its

work with the FDA demonstrates ``the danger that conflicts of

interest can pose in government contracting.''

``Our bipartisan bill would help ensure that companies that

enter into a contract with the government are acting in the

best interest of the American people,'' Hassan said.

McKinsey spokesperson Neil Grace told ABC News that

McKinsey's consulting work with pharmaceutical companies

``did not create a conflict of interest'' for the firm's work

with the FDA because it ``has not advised the FDA on

regulatory policy or on specific pharmaceutical products.''

Instead, said Grace, McKinsey's work for the agency ``focused

on administrative and operational topics, including

improvements to organizational structures, business processes

and technology.''

``Given the absence of a conflict of interest, there was no

requirement for any McKinsey disclosure,'' Grace said. ``That

said, McKinsey's proposals to the FDA frequently mentioned

the company's and personnel's experience with the

pharmaceutical industry, making the FDA aware of this aspect

of McKinsey's work in the field.''

Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa joined Peters,

Grassley, and Hassan in sponsoring the federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, conflicts of interest are not a new issue, but it is clear that more needs to be done by this Congress. The American people ought to have faith that their tax dollars are being spent wisely on contractors who are working in their best interest. This bill will increase impartiality and integrity within the Federal consultant and contractor system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my good friend from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Texas--you know, I am always open to working on these sometimes difficult rules that we have in our Congress. I respect the opinion, but I have a different perspective. What we are doing today is keeping the lights on.

With all due respect, the last time the Republicans were in charge of the Congress the lights went off. That is

not good for anyone. It is not good for the American people, and it is not good for the world economy.

What we are trying to do here in the House is make it a little bit easier for the arcane rules that, I think, most of us would agree to in the Senate to make it easier for the bill to come back over and, hopefully, have an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, on longer spending in an omnibus.

With all due respect, we have something that we have here in these Chambers: a disagreement. The tone, I think you can tell, of my voice is very different. But I do think the things that both gentlemen have brought up are real issues.

Immigration is a real issue. We have tried, many of us, to come up with something that is bipartisan that leads to solutions to a difficult situation that multiple administrations and Congresses have struggled for; that has a long history in this country when it comes to immigration, the benefit and the challenges around that; and being able to make sure that the beneficiaries of immigration are consistent with treaties that we have signed around the world, and principles, but also to American citizens.

On the other issues, those are all real issues. What we have here in front of us today in these resolutions are laws that will actually help the American people, too, and, lastly, will continue to keep the lights on by funding government.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are not talking about the Federal budget in its entirety today. That will continue to be negotiated and debated, and there will be a vote on it.

What we are talking about are specific resolutions that the Committee on Rules has passed down here to this body to talk about protecting workers who protect veterans. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about improving healthcare for America's veterans that we all say we respect, admire, and honor.

We know that when people are able to organize in the workplace, or at least to present the opportunity, they are safer. Research shows that hospitals that have had the ability for workers and nurses to organize and have a fair say in how they treat their patients, that mortality rates improve, that people are served better. That is what we are talking about today.

We are talking about giving police departments the resources they need in the world today so that behavioral health people can do their job, so that police officers can do their job and not respond to almost one in four calls in the United States that involve mental health, where the police officers are asked to do something that they shouldn't be asked to do.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, I have spent 30 years involved in my own district--from a mayor of a city of 130,000 people, to the legislature, to this body--developing programs with the police department in behavioral health, which started with a conversation with a beat patrolman and a mental health clinician. All it is about is improving the safety of Americans. That is what we are talking about here.

We are talking about helping with the opioid crisis. I haven't heard anything from the gentleman about the things that are actually in this rule.

Do we want to help people with the high mortality and suicide crisis in opioids that we know now, from the hearings that we have had, that the chair and I have asked for in the Committee on Oversight?

We brought the CEOs of the largest corporation, Johnson & Johnson, to testify in front of Congress about what they did at what used to be a great American pharmaceutical company that once had one of the most admired CEOs in the world and now has somebody who has lied on his college resume twice and has helped to kill Americans by deliberately turbocharging the sale of opioids to Americans.

That is what we are talking about in this rule, holding people accountable.

McKinsey & Company, a company that was based in San Francisco for years--I have known people who lived in my district and worked there. It once was a shining light of American innovation and management. Now, it has fallen to this epitome of greed and hypocrisy. That is what we are talking about, stopping that kind of behavior, in this rule.

We are talking about keeping the lights on in the United States Congress, and the Federal Government, for 1 week so that we can have an omnibus, and then we can debate those other things.

Do I agree that the process is not perfect? I agree. Do I agree we could do better? I agree, and I am open to those things. But let's focus on what is in this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy being on the floor and debating my friend from Pennsylvania. I will miss this if I am not afforded the opportunity to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, again, focusing on the rule here. First in this rule, we are helping veterans. We are helping the people who serve veterans to be able to organize.

One of my favorite quotes on the ability of workers to have a voice is from Dwight David Eisenhower, who said, Only a fool would try to stop an American man or woman in the workplace from organizing.

So that is the first point, helping people to have a voice in the VA to serve our veterans better.

The second point is on holding McKinsey & Company, a very large corporation, American company, accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic.

Third in the rule is helping our investment in public safety, a bipartisan effort that came out of the Senate, to help provide them to de-escalate when they are in a difficult situation.

Lastly, we are here to keep the lights on.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the debate and the passion, we do have work to do today, and I would request and ask Democrats and Republicans to vote ``yes'' on this rule.

This rule is an important step in passing these bills that will make a difference in the lives of the Americans that we represent and help restore faith in this institution and the government.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1518

Strike sections 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1518, I call up the bill (H.R. 1948) to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating to the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health Administration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1948, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1948, as amended, the bipartisan VA Employee Fairness Act. This legislation ensures important collective bargaining rights for all frontline healthcare workers who care for our veterans.

As chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have made veterans' healthcare one of my top priorities. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle strongly support our veterans and the benefits they earn.

This bill presents an opportunity to match words with action. The VA Employee Fairness Act will ensure critical protections for the healthcare workers serving our veterans.

As a Nation, we must invest in these frontline workers at VA hospitals. Our veterans need modern, well-designed hospital and clinical buildings equipped with the latest, most advanced medical devices and equipment and stocked with adequate medical supplies.

However, all this means little without a well-trained workforce ready to serve our veterans. That is why collective bargaining is vital.

Frontline healthcare workers deserve the right to organize themselves. They deserve to have a voice. VA nurses or technicians should be able to point out wrongdoing without fear of losing their job or other forms of retaliation.

All of this sounds like common sense, and it is, and this is what collective bargaining is all about.

My bill will bring parity to the Federal workforce by ensuring full collective bargaining rights for all VA employees.

Under current law, almost all Federal employees have basic worker protections through collective bargaining. They can become members of a labor union. They have a way to raise grievances and seek redress. They are allowed to have the support of union representatives. This has long been part of the fabric of the Federal workforce.

But there is one glaring exception. Many of the frontline healthcare workers within VA hospitals and clinics are barred from collective bargaining.

Title 38 healthcare professionals, such as registered nurses, physicians, dentists, and physician assistants, do not have the same rights as the psychologists, social workers, pharmacists, and licensed practical nurses who work side by side with them.

I will note that the same professionals at Department of Defense hospitals have collective bargaining rights. You heard that right. A registered nurse has collective bargaining rights at DOD but not a registered nurse at VA. This is the kind of legal contortion that should be fixed.

This probably sounds arbitrary, and it is. A list was written up by Congress years ago and depending on your specialty of nursing care or other occupation, someone taking care of veterans is either able to have full rights as an employee or not, and this only happens at VA healthcare facilities.

The bill is cosponsored by 218 of our congressional colleagues, and it has the support from those who represent frontline VA healthcare workers, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, National Nurses United, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Association of Government Employees, Service Employees International Union, the National Veterans Affairs Council, and a dozen other national labor unions. Further, this bill has the endorsement of Vietnam Veterans of America and The American Legion.

I wish to point out what VA said in its testimony when my committee held a legislative hearing on it last year. ``Secretary McDonough has stated publicly and to our workforce that a unionized workforce is a strong workforce. Collective bargaining is a powerful means for a strong workforce which is VA's number one asset as we work toward increasing access and outcomes for veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. VA supports organized labor and values in the collective bargaining process with our labor partners.''

I agree. This is about building and maintaining a strong workforce, a workforce dedicated to serving our veterans. I will share a real-world example of the importance of collective bargaining at VA.

In an issue that rose to U.S. District Court, the Central Texas VA Healthcare System failed to pay nurse practitioners and physician assistants overtime. When the healthcare workers demanded what was due to them, VA resisted.

The case was arbitrated in favor of the employees, but VA then used its authority under title 38 to argue that the grievance should not be addressed.

There is nothing fair about that.

This outdated provision in Federal law has become an excuse for VA to deny workers the benefits they have rightfully earned. Stories like these hardly represent an incentive for nurses to remain in the Department.

H.R. 1948, as amended, will ensure that VA employees have the ability to seek redress when VA does not follow its own rules and policies.

Some of my colleagues will argue that this means labor unions will start making veteran healthcare decisions, but this is, quite simply, not the case. Under Federal law, VA healthcare workers do not have this power. No Federal healthcare worker with collective bargaining rights has this power. Nor do their labor unions.

In fact, the current law stipulates that Federal employees with collective bargaining rights are limited in what they can bargain for.

Unlike in the private sector, Federal workers who have collective bargaining rights cannot strike, and they cannot bargain over their level of pay. Pay levels are set by the civil service pay grades each year and are not subject to collective bargaining.

Title 38 employees should have the same rights as those governed by title 5. Title 38 employees should have the same rights as their colleagues with whom they work side by side serving our veterans. H.R. 1948, as amended, is all about fairness for VA's frontline workers.

VA is going to be ramping up hiring over the next 5 years as it welcomes 3.5 million more veterans into the VA healthcare system after the passage of the Honoring our PACT Act. In order to attract the most qualified workforce to serve our veterans, we need to ensure that VA is a great place to work.

The employees who are on the front lines of our Nation's veterans' healthcare deserve and need basic worker protections. A VA nurse needs to be able to ask that their pay errors will be resolved. A doctor must feel empowered to raise medical safety concerns without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Without these protections, VA will continue to struggle to recruit and retain the best and brightest medical professionals that our country has to offer, and I fear that veterans' health and well-being will suffer as a result.

This is about fairness, and I am pleased that the administration agrees and has issued a statement in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1948--VA Employee Fairness Act of 2022--Rep. Takano, D-CA, and 218

cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1948, the

VA Employee Fairness, Act of 2022, to expand collective

bargaining opportunities for covered Federal employees.

The Biden-Harris Administration supports worker organizing

and empowerment as critical tools to grow the middle class

and build an inclusive economy. The Federal government,

consistent with its obligations to serve the public, can be a

model employer in this regard.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for

the delivery of safe, effective, and timely patient care for

our veterans, and dedicated VA employees work tirelessly to

support our veterans' health needs, including in combating

Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1948, as amended, the VA Employee Fairness Act. It represents the right thing to do for those who care about our Nation's veterans. I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), I would like to rebut some of the points that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my good friend, has made.

I believe that the gentleman from Illinois is misreading the law. H.R. 1948 will not allow the types of impacts that he has described. H.R. 1948 amends section 7422 of title 38. This is true. However, it is title 5 statutes overall that define the scope of collective bargaining for Federal workers.

Most importantly, title 5 states that collective bargaining does not include policies, practices, and matters ``to the extent that such matters are specifically provided by Federal statute.''

There are many laws which define the scope of collective bargaining. For example, if H.R. 1948 were enacted, title 38 section 7464 of the United States Code is still on the books. This law controls disciplinary appeals boards. I remind my colleagues that H.R. 1948 would only allow unions to grieve items under its contract with the department, and if it is not in the contract, a grievance cannot occur.

Furthermore, my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Bost) has made the assertion that doctors and nurses don't have collective bargaining rights outside of VA, or he pointed out a specific example of the Mayo Clinic. There are many, many wonderful, great, effective medical organizations that do have employee unions as part of their workforce, and so what he is stating is simply not true.

Hundreds of thousands of registered nurses and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners, are represented by labor unions and have full collective bargaining rights. Full collective bargaining rights. We are not talking about full collective bargaining rights in this particular instance of H.R. 1948.

There are whole unions for physicians and dentists that have existed for more than 50 years, and this includes many hospitals in New York and California. At UC San Francisco, over 5,000 nurses are represented by National Nurses United, and doctors are represented by Committee of Interns and Residents, which is part of SEIU.

Furthermore, DOD healthcare clinicians have collective bargaining rights, including nurses and physicians.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend and cosponsor of H.R. 1948, a member of the Committee on Financial Services, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. He also serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague from the State of Illinois that this bill more than adequately went through regular order.

We held a legislative hearing in April of 2021. The bill has garnered 218 cosponsors of our colleagues, each of whom has presumably reviewed the bill before they joined as cosponsors. We put the bill through a regular markup, and I have been in regular consultation with the Secretary of the VA about this bill. And most recently, the White House has issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the bill.

So to say that this bill is being rammed through at the 11th hour is patently untrue and not accurate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), my good friend and cosponsor of this bill. He serves on the Budget Committee and is a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I just remind the gentleman from Illinois that I did cite an egregious example of the VA ignoring the conclusions of an arbitrator in a patently unfair way.

Giving our title 38 employees the right to organize and the right to be represented by unions in such cases where a very legitimate grievance arises, I think is a basic principle of fairness, in fairness.

Let us think about what our veterans sacrificed. Let us think about what they put the uniform of their country on to fight for. They fought for our freedoms. They fought for our rights. They fought for basic fairness.

I have often said on this floor, that supporting our veterans is neither about being red or blue, but red, white, and blue. And I say to you that it is red, white, and blue to support the very principles that our veterans fought for. They fought for fairness. They fought for dignity. If you look at authoritarian countries around the world, they not only close the churches down, they not only close civil society down, but they close down real, independent unions, as well.

So if we are faithful to the principles of our Republic, we will stand up not only for religious institutions, not only for civil society, not only for your right and my right to say what is on our mind, but we will also fight for the right and defend the right of employees to organize and to unionize.

In this case, it is a very limited circumscribed form of collective bargaining, far more circumscribed than the very union that my colleague, who is a firefighter, I am willing to bet that his union had a far more robust ability to exercise collective bargaining than the very employees that we are trying to empower today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1948, and I stand squarely behind it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, introduced in July 2022, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November 5, 2023, and it would dictate to the voters of Puerto Rico three and only three choices: independence, sovereignty and free association, or statehood. If no one option receives a majority vote, there will be a runoff on March 3, 2024.

I cannot support this measure because of process concerns and wide- ranging policy changes that involve the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, along with several

other House committees that haven't even seen this bill.

The Committee on Natural Resources has not held a hearing on this bill, nor have the other committees with expertise on complex issues of U.S. citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy, and many other matters. None of them have been given an opportunity to openly consider, debate, and amend this bill.

The question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its questions, understand its consequences, and accept responsibility for the choice, so should Congress.

These issues are far too important for this body to act without proper deliberation. Because of the hasty and secretive process that was used to develop this bill, it contains many concerning and unresolved issues.

The bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the promise of independence while prescribing actions that should be taken by the newly sovereign nation. How can you be independent yet have another nation dictate what your actions will be?

It promises the trappings of U.S. citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we are here considering this legislation on the House floor after the majority has held backroom negotiations instead of open, transparent hearings and markups. A regular and open legislative process would have allowed Members of this body and the people of Puerto Rico--more than 3 million United States citizens--to fully assess what this bill proposes and what it means for this and future generations.

In fact, the majority made changes to the bill that had even less consideration than the version ordered to be reported by the Committee on Natural Resources in July, cutting backroom deals as recently as this week.

We learned this bill would be on the floor even before we had the text from the Rules Committee. We didn't even know what we would be debating when we learned this bill would be on the floor.

Madam Speaker, there is a favorite Latin expression of mine. It is lux et veritas. It means light and truth. This body, this Congress, and this Federal Government could use a lot more light and truth.

You see, without light, when you are in the darkness, you don't know what truth is. If you don't know what truth is, then you make bad policy decisions.

Unfortunately, the lack of transparency seems to be par for the course in Congress anymore. This bill should have been debated. It should have had light shone on it.

This is just bad policy. I don't see how anybody could read this bill and think that there are not problems with it, that there is not a lack of logic. There is incoherence in the text of the bill, and it is taking us to a position where we would make bad decisions.

Here we are, just a week after this Chamber was left guessing what would be in the final NDAA and while we are currently guessing what will be in a last-minute omnibus spending bill that will, no doubt, be rolled out in the dark of night. This is another example of what is so broken about this process, what is so broken about the way this majority has led.

If this majority were interested in helping Puerto Rico, we would be advancing legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or meet any of the other tangible needs for the people of Puerto Rico.

We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and letting a full and robust legislative process in the light of day take place to address the status question and the many implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8393, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to be as crystal clear as I can. I think this is not only my position, but I believe it is the position of everyone in the minority--the whole Republican Conference and I would hope it would be the position of all of the Democratic Caucus--that America is not a symbol of darkness.

America is still a shining city on a hill. America offers more hope and more protections for freedom than anybody in the history of the world has offered and will continue to offer that. A country that is founded on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be considered a country that is a symbol of darkness.

I heard a lot of talk about colonialism. But passing a bill that tells a sovereign nation what its laws should be sounds a lot like colonialism to me.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, the leader of the Democratic Party, for his remarks. I agree with many things that he said. I think all of us would agree with many of the things that he stated. I was with him right up there until the part about using D.C. statehood as a metaphor with Puerto Rican statehood. If the gentleman wanted to talk about the residents of D.C., we can talk about taking those residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in D.C. and putting them back with the State of Maryland if that is an issue. D.C. statehood is totally different from Puerto Rican statehood, and it shouldn't even be brought into this discussion.

The gentleman talked about the inherent right to self-determination. He said it is something that shouldn't be dictated by the Congress of the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico. He said the decision belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. Their destiny belongs to them. I think we would all agree with that in principle, but that is not what this bill says.

Section 102 talking about the independence option. I am reading directly from the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 101 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

We all agree that should happen, but if they are an independent nation, what right do we have to tell them that? It says it shall include: ``Due process and equal protection under the law; freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion; the rights of the accused; any other economic, social, and cultural rights as the constitutional convention may deem appropriate and necessary; and provisions to ensure that no individual born in the nation of Puerto Rico shall be stateless at birth.''

I don't disagree with that, but if they vote for independence, what right do we have to dictate to them how they write their constitution and what is included in it?

The other option of free association, section 202 of the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 201 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees

the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

Again, if they have the sovereignty under a free association, what right does Congress have to dictate what their constitution will say? The leader's words that their destiny shouldn't be dictated by the U.S. Congress. Their destiny belongs to them. Yet, this bill tells them what they shall do if they vote for either of those options.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If there is one thing that I think has come out in this discussion is that there are problems with this bill. It is not a ``perfect piece of legislation.'' It needs work done on it.

But we have to look at what the bill says. The way this bill is written, if it were to pass today, if it passes out of this House and it went through the process in the Senate, signed by the President, then we have abrogated all of our responsibilities and authority, because it doesn't come back to Congress for any kind of approval.

So both sides have agreed, in a bipartisan manner, that this bill has problems, yet we are voting on it today to

say, with problems, that is okay; we are just going to go ahead and move it through the process, even though we have all recognized that there are problems with the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our neighbors in Puerto Rico are American citizens. They are afforded the protections under the Constitution of the United States. I am from Arkansas. Arkansas was a territory at one time. There is a process for becoming a State.

The American citizens in Puerto Rico deserve the respect to have a process that has actually been thought out, that has been debated, and that gives them an opportunity to enter statehood in a way that is more common to the way other States have entered. This bill is not that. This bill has serious problems with it.

We are right here at the end of Congress. To me, this just looks like a political ploy as we are waiting to pass a massive spending bill before we go home for Christmas and start the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, in closing, it is obvious there is bipartisan support for Puerto Rican self-determination. That is not the issue. The issue is the process, and this is a bad process.

If this is so important to the majority, then I ask: Why today? Why today?

Less than 20 days before this Congress ends and Democrats transition to the minority, why bring this bill today?

Was there not time in the past 4 years to have hearings on this bill, to have other committees look at this bill?

But yesterday, we get notice of an emergency Rules Committee meeting to consider this bill that all of a sudden is so important, but it wasn't important, certainly not in this Congress. We didn't have a hearing on this bill. We had a markup, a markup without a hearing.

The committee spent more time talking about big cats. We had hearings on big cats, then we talked about Puerto Rican status. There are 10,000 big cats in the United States, and there are over 3 million Puerto Rican citizens.

That is why we are not supporting this bill today, and that is why it is disingenuous to bring it to the House less than 20 days before the end of this Congress when both sides have agreed that there are problems with the bill, problems that need to be worked out, but there is no recourse in this bill for Congress to have a second look at it.

We can't control the Senate, but I doubt very seriously the Senate is going to be taking up this bill. So that leads me to conclude that what we are doing here at the end of December, discussing Puerto Rican status, is simply just a political ploy on the backs of the

Puerto Rican citizens of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania, I appreciate the Speaker, and the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania and I share a love of outlaw country music, whether it is Texas-based--my preference--or generally. There is a famous picture of Johnny Cash standing up giving his middle finger, and it is on the cover of an album. If all 435 of us stood on the steps of the Capitol with our middle finger to the American people, it would be a more honest action than what we are engaging in here on the floor of the people's House right now.

Let me tell you what is happening right now. In true swamp fashion, what we are about to do is deem as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to enable us to have a revenue measure--to enable us to give the Senate a revenue measure to satisfy the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House. The House amendment to a Senate amendment fast-tracks the omnibus by allowing the Senate to bypass a motion to proceed vote.

Now, that is a bunch of complicated, parliamentary procedure gobbledygook for the American people, but what it is is a fraud. It is a fraud.

It is actually trying to end-run the rules in order to jam through what? A massive $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill without any actual debate. That is what is happening right now on the floor of the House of Representatives, nothing else.

In that $1.7 trillion bill--and pause for a second--what are we actually packaging here? A week-long continuing resolution to keep the government open through this weekend into next week so negotiations can continue to wrap up this $1.7 trillion monstrosity.

So the vote today is a vote to perpetuate and extend funding for a week to allow a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill in a lameduck Congress. That has not been done, by the way, in the last 70 years when we have had a flip of the House, a flip in majority control of the House. We have not done that over the last 70 years. In the five times there has been a flip, we do not pass big spending bills in a lameduck Congress, which is what this is. My Democratic colleagues know it; my Democratic colleagues in the Senate know it; and the Senate Republicans who seem to be trying to grease the skids of this, they know it, as well. Here we sit.

So to the American people, you need to understand what the people's House is doing to you today--standing on the steps of the Capitol sticking their middle finger up at you would be more honest because this is defense spending, $858 billion, a 10 percent increase.

We can debate the need for a defense spending increase. Many of us probably would agree we need to have more defense spending, but we also need to fix the Department of Defense. We need to stop having it turn into a woke agency that is essentially social engineering wrapped in a uniform. Let's fix the Department of Defense. No, we are not debating that. We are just going to give another blank check of 10 percent additional spending.

But it is worse than that. We are now going to have nondefense spending reports--we haven't seen the text because, oh, no, the little people here in the House can't see the text before we actually vote on this crap. No, no, no, they are going to jam it through without seeing the text. Nondefense spending--reports indicate somewhere between an 8 to 11 percent increase.

Now, to put that in context, we are talking about something in the order of $50 to $60 billion. Here is the thing, we just spent something like $2 trillion in nondefense discretionary plus-up during COVID, and we are now going to jump into this, and we are going to say, oh, yeah, I have got a good idea. Let's jump up nondefense discretionary spending. That is all of the alphabet soup of all of the agencies that are attacking the American people every single day, empowering the FBI to designate parents as domestic terrorists, empowering the DHS to not actually secure the homeland while Americans are dying from fentanyl poisoning and immigrants are burning up 53 of them in a tractor trailer in San Antonio.

That is what we are dealing with. This CR is the gateway drug to an omnibus spending bill next week. That is why we should oppose it. We should oppose the CR, we should oppose this rule, and we should oppose the omnibus.

The American people deserve a House of Representatives that is actually doing the work of appropriating rather than jamming through an omnibus bill right before Christmas in a lameduck session after the American people spoke and sent a new majority to the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the collegiality of the body and wanting to engage. I am happy to engage. We just never get a chance to engage.

We are down here, basically, in a fake debate. That is what we all know. I mean, the truth is it is not like we have a body, a Chamber filled here with human beings debating this $1.7 trillion while we are $32 trillion in debt. I would be happy to.

Why don't we actually roll up our sleeves around these tables and do the work? But we don't do that.

We are literally down here, and we are going to do--what?--30 minutes a side, if we even do that, and then we are going to vote. We are going to vote on a rule that packages together, as I said, deeming as passed a House bill on Federal agency reporting goals with a House amendment to a previously passed Senate amendment to pass a $1.7 trillion omnibus, combined with a CR for an extension for a week, in a lame-duck Congress. That is the truth.

The American people pull their hair out. They go, gosh, what on Earth is happening in Washington?

Well, I will tell them what is happening in Washington. This, this is what is happening in Washington.

We know what this is about. This is jamming through a bill at the eleventh hour to get the political priorities of the current Democratic majority, and a handful of Senate Republicans are happy to do it so they can get pork.

The House and the Senate have requested a total of $16 billion for 7,500 earmarks. The top requester: Senator Richard Shelby, ranking member of Senate Appropriations, with $656 million. This is a nice little send-off for the appropriators in the Senate.

But the fact of the matter is the American people are the ones who get screwed in this deal. They are the ones who end up losing their country with $32 trillion in debt.

There is no justification for ramping up spending an additional 10 percent for nondefense discretionary after all the money that has been spent under COVID and using the Defense Department as the backs upon which you are going to place the debt of our children and grandchildren and say that, ``Oh, yes, we are doing this for defense.'' That is just wrong.

At what point are we actually going to do the work of the American people in the people's House? At what point are we going to actually debate? At what point are we actually going to amend? At what point are we actually going to live within our means and stop writing checks we can't cash?

The American people are staring at us. They throw their hands up in the air and wonder what has become of the country that their brothers and sisters and dads and moms and daughters and sons have fought for.

Why do we stand in front of that flag? Why do we open in prayer? Why do we say the Pledge of Allegiance if we are going to rip apart the flag right here in this body, in this Chamber? Because that is what we are doing, using backroom deals, dropping these bills on the floor, and not allowing us to actually engage in debate over these important matters.

The American people are tired of spending money we don't have, and they are tired of open borders. They are tired of empowering bureaucrats like the FBI. They are tired of forced vaccine mandates at the Department of Defense. They are tired of an IRS harassing the American people, allegedly, for more revenue. They are tired of an NIH and a CDC making it up as they go along and shutting down economies and jamming it down the throats of the American people. They are tired of an EPA and a Department of the Interior restricting Americans' ability to have reliable energy. The American people are tired of it.

I hope help is on the way. I am glad the Republicans seem united against this in the House, and I am looking at Mitch McConnell when I say this: Do your job, Leader McConnell. Do your job, and follow the wishes of the American people, who gave a majority to Republicans in the House of Representatives. Let's stop this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California talked about the extent to which the process is bad and that we can do better. Well, I am glad that he agrees with that.

The question is, well, let's agree right now to amend the CR to March. Why don't we do that? Why don't we agree right now to amend the continuing resolution until March?

Well, we know why my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, right? They don't want to have a full-throated debate on this. They don't want to have an actual discussion.

Why don't we have an open process? Why don't we actually have amendments here on the floor of the House? We haven't been able to offer an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives since May 2016.

But the gentleman from California knows this. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. This isn't about actually saying let's have a process that works. It is the opposite. It is using Christmas and the end of the year to jam this through, not to buy time with a 1-week CR so we can negotiate.

Who is negotiating? Three people in a room? We are not. We are not debating this on the floor. We are not going to do it in the light of day. No. What is going to happen is one big bill will be dropped on the floor after this rule is jammed through, on the 23rd of December, 2 days before Christmas, intentionally, right before Christmas, in order to force everybody to come in, with no amendments, to vote up or down on $1.7 trillion.

How on Earth did we end up $32 trillion in debt? That is how, and there is no actual resolve to do anything about that.

Again, control of the House of Representatives has shifted from one party to the other five times since 1954. In none of those years have we had the outgoing Congress pass a comprehensive spending bill in the lame duck that is after the election. We shouldn't do it now. We shouldn't do it in the future.

One last point: If there is a debate in the Senate right now and some of our Senate colleagues decide to object to the continuing resolution, which I would support, which would then call into question the funding on Saturday, when we wake up, let's be very clear that it is Democrats who would be risking shutting down the government because they are so married to funding the alphabet soup of the bureaucracy throughout this town that is strangling the American people, strangling prosperity, spending money we don't have, refusing to secure the border, empowering FBI agents to go after the American people. Those are the priorities of my Democratic colleagues.

If there is any debate on Saturday as to whether the lights are going to be turned on in the government, it is on the hands of Democrats married to a bureaucracy rather than standing up in defense of the American people who send us here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation that are, once again, nothing but missed opportunities to address the multiple crises facing our country under the Biden Presidency.

Rather than working with Republicans to actually address the unmitigated crisis at our southern border, to address the cold war we have with China, the proxy war we have with Russia, or the historic levels of inflation, Democrats are rushing to the floor these half- baked legislative items that will create more problems than they aim to solve.

Look no further than S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. Instead of making meaningful reforms to Federal acquisition policy, this legislation is duplicative, and it is contradictory to existing policies. It also tells the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to do something that it is already required to do.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, the VA Employee Fairness Act. This legislation would put veteran patients at risk by shifting questions of professional conduct to collective bargaining.

The Secretary of the VA has been and should continue to be directly accountable for the quality of care provided to our veterans at the VA.

While we are focusing on these unnecessary bills, China has recently signed a $50 billion trade deal with our ally Saudi Arabia; Putin, once again, threatened to launch a nuclear war on the West; and the wealth of the average American has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol reported that over the weekend there were over 16,000 migrant encounters at the border--and wait for it--that was in a 48-hour period, 16,000 in less than 2 days, but President Biden hasn't stepped foot on the southern border since he took office.

Last week, when he was not visiting the border while in Arizona, President Joe Biden was asked about that, and his response was ``There are more important things going on.''

Yet, during the administration there have been nearly 5 million illegal immigrant crossings at our southern border, and that includes 1 million got-aways. These are individuals that we have no record of that we just know escaped into the interior of the country.

Yet, Biden has failed at protecting our southern border just as he failed in America's prisoner swap with President Putin. The administration effectively surrendered to Putin by swapping a woke celebrity basketball player for the ``Merchant of Death,'' an international arms smuggler with the blood of Americans on his hands.

This disastrous negotiation is just another failed foreign policy decision that was based on Russia's terms, not ours. This rash decision left two other Americans detained in Russia: Pittsburgh history teacher Marc Fogel, and U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. They have no clear chance of returning home now. We have lost all leverage unless--I am going to be surprised to discover that--we have two ``merchants of death'' in a Federal prison in the U.S. Something tells me that is not the case.

What we should be doing is we should be immediately acting to protect our national security. We should be ensuring the safe return of all Americans that are wrongfully detained abroad. We should be working to secure the southern border. We should not be passing ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation. To be frank, our time is too precious, and our challenges are too great.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing any of the crises that are actually facing this Nation, House Democrats are allowing the Senate to ram through a huge omnibus spending bill that was written without the input of House Republicans and was written behind closed doors.

In September, House Republicans were very clear in opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame- duck session. Once again, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government despite spending most of the year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has fueled inflation and driven up our debt.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately strike sections 8 and 9 from the rule, which would strike the omnibus vehicle from this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I really can't stand the cliche that history repeats itself, but that is true. To prove that, let me just read some excerpts from a Joe Biden speech from 2006. Joe Biden said: ``The world is going to Hades in a handbasket. We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to the avian flu. We do not have enough vaccines. We do not have enough police officers. And we are going to debate, the next 3 weeks, I am told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We all voted.''

That was Joe Biden in 2006. It sounds awfully familiar to what my colleagues across the aisle are doing now with these fluff bills, bills that are already on the books and nothing but a distraction from the real crises that are facing this Nation.

To talk more about that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, this rule provides for four pieces of legislation that, once again, are just missed opportunities to actually address the problems we are facing.

Let's talk about one of the biggest problems, and that is the southern border. To contextualize this, let me give you some stats. This year, 98 suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to cross the southern border. Think about that.

It took 19 hijackers on 9/11 to pull off the largest terrorist attack in this country. In this year alone, we have let 98 suspected terrorists walk across the southern border.

In October, there were over 230,000 illegal immigrant encounters at the southern border. That is just in October. To put that into context, that is a 334 percent increase from the average number of October encounters under President Trump.

In November, there were more than 70,000 known got-aways at the southern border. That is a historic record.

What is really worse is the fentanyl crisis, the fentanyl that is coming across the southern border. There were more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2022. That is a record.

As a reminder, a lethal dose of fentanyl is only 2 milligrams. Fentanyl was responsible for two-thirds of all drug overdoses last year.

There has been a 94 percent increase in fentanyl deaths since 2019. To put that into more context, that is one fentanyl overdose every 7 minutes in the United States.

Just 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming across the southern border are seized by our Border Patrol agents.

What does the administration say on this? It is classic gaslighting. I will quote Joe Biden once again. He said, ``There are more important things going on.'' Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, said the border is secure. DHS Secretary Mayorkas said, look, the border is secure.

They are either gaslighting, or they have no connection and no grounding in reality.

As far as the omnibus, let's just go back to September. In September, House Democrats were clear in their opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame-duck session. We didn't want it then; we don't want it now.

Unfortunately, on September 30, a continuing resolution was passed funding the government through December 16. So, here we are today.

This 1-week continuing resolution is an attempt to buy additional time for a massive lame-duck spending bill in which House Republicans had no seat at the negotiating table.

We will soon be in the majority. Republicans will soon be in the majority. We will be in the driver's seat to fight for our priorities. That is why every Republican should be a ``no'' on the Democrats' lame- duck omnibus spending bill.

To talk more about the omnibus, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Lives are being lost while President Biden and Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at our southern border. Tragically, just last week, on December 7, United States Border Patrol Agent Raul Humberto Gonzalez, Jr., was killed while chasing a group of migrants across the border.

To go back to that quote from President Biden about the southern border and about why he hasn't visited, despite the fact that he was just in Arizona, ``There are more important things going on.'' That is what President Biden has to say; stinging words

given the deaths and casualties that we are seeing at the southern border and the fentanyl deaths and overdoses in the interior of this country.

It is absolutely maddening to see such a flagrant disregard not only for our hardworking Border Patrol agents but our Nation's immigration system as a whole. For that reason, we must bring the border crisis to an end.

But President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats have manufactured this historic crisis on our southern border by halting the construction of the border wall, ending Trump's remain in Mexico policy, and refusing to visit the border.

U.S. Border Patrol facilities are becoming overrun with thousands of illegal immigrants in custody. This crisis is only getting worse. On December 21, title 42 ends, a powerful tool that allowed border officials to expel more than 2 million migrants during the pandemic. There now have been 20 straight months of over 150,000 illegal border crossings.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats continue to ignore this historic disaster at our border. This crisis could not be more devastating to the sovereignty and the security of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.