To amend the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act to authorize appropriations for catch-up payments from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1404, making in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, or her designee, to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I am sure we will have a spirited debate on this rule, but before we do, I want to begin by expressing my heartfelt sympathy for the people of Florida. The catastrophic devastation left behind by Hurricane Ian is unlike anything we have seen in quite some time.

Our hearts are with those whose lives have been lost and their loved ones, and we pray for those who are missing that they will be located safely and soon. If there is one thing we know, it is that the people of Florida are strong. This is not their first hurricane. They will recover and they will come back stronger than ever.

I want to thank all of the first responders who have sprung into action to save lives: from local police, fire, and EMS, all the way up to our Federal response at FEMA. The people of Florida ought to know that America stands with them. Part of standing with the people of Florida is passing this important legislation to keep the government open during this critical moment.

Madam Speaker, with less than 24 hours until the end of the fiscal year, today we are here to do our job. We, in Congress, have a responsibility to the American people to keep the lights on. In addition to preventing the furlough of thousands of Federal employees, averting a shutdown will also ensure that our constituents can continue to receive the vital government services that they need.

The last shutdown, when the Republicans were in charge of the House and the Senate and the White House, was the longest shutdown in our history. It cost our economy an astounding $11 billion.

In contrast, Democrats are doing our job. We are keeping the government open as we finish up bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on a longer-term fiscal year 2023 appropriations package.

This CR also provides Ukraine with the security, economic, and humanitarian assistance that they need to fight back against Russia's brutal invasion. With Russia holding fake elections to annex parts of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people urgently need our support to protect their families and defend global democracy.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the devastating hurricane in Florida. We also just had an awful hurricane in Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico are still reeling from the damage of Hurricane Fiona. Also, the people of Alaska are recovering from a terrible typhoon.

This bill contains money to support communities across the United States as they recover from natural disasters.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about hurricane relief for God's sake. I am begging my Republican friends, can we please at least come together on providing relief to communities devastated by hurricanes?

Can we all agree that we ought not shut the government down in the middle of a major natural disaster response?

The funding in this bill will help families and small businesses get back on their feet and rebuilt from extreme weather events while repairing damage to critical infrastructure.

This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Speaker. It earned 72 votes in the Senate. I don't think you can get 72 votes in the Senate on what to have for lunch, let alone on government funding legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am going to again plead with my colleagues, do not vote against additional funding to help people recover from hurricane damage, please, especially my Republican friends from Florida. A vote against this CR is a vote against funding for help with hurricane recovery in your own State.

I just hope that we are not at the point where we have become so partisan and so polarized that we can't even agree on this.

Madam Speaker, this rule also includes H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/ 11 Families Act. This bill will ensure thousands of 9/11 families and victims who received some but not all of the compensation that they deserve are made whole.

Both of these measures deserve broad support today. Americans are depending on us to get this done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania reciting the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's greatest hits, but let me remind people who are watching why we are here today.

We are here today to move two important pieces of legislation forward; one that would help 9/11 families, which I hope we all can agree is worth supporting; and the second is to make sure that the government doesn't shut down; that we continue to provide funding that will help aid some of the natural disasters that we are seeing happen all over this country.

While it is too early to have a damage assessment from Hurricane Ian and actually know what the true cost of all this is going to be, make no mistake, this CR will help. There is money for 2022 disasters and community development block grants for disaster recovery above the OMB request.

More importantly, we included language to give FEMA a full year's worth of funding up front, not just for the 2\1/2\-month CR period; and more help will come for Florida, as we find out what is needed.

Communities across America are currently dealing with record-breaking numbers of storms. According to The Washington Post this morning, ``Since 2017, an unprecedented number of storms rated Category 4 or stronger have lashed the U.S. shoreline: Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Laura, Ida, and now Ian. They all qualify as `rapid intensification events,' when a storm's wind speeds increase by at least 35 miles within 24 hours.''

People should read The Washington Post about what is happening as a result of these storms.

We have an obligation to help all of these communities. But you know what won't help? A government shutdown in the midst of a natural disaster of this magnitude.

Again, I would point out to my colleagues here, we think it is unacceptable to ever shut down the Federal Government. My Republican friends obviously have a different point of view because when they were in charge, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they shut the government down, the longest government shutdown in our history, and it was costly. To even contemplate doing that in the face of these natural disasters is unbelievable.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I hope that she will vote for the rule because if the rule doesn't pass, we can't bring this bill up for a vote. I agree with her; this is incredibly important. So I hope all my colleagues will vote for the rule, not just to help 9/11 families, but also to keep the government open during this really critical time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am embarrassed for my friends on the other side of the aisle. I just saw the bill. I am looking at the bill, and all it does is ask for more reports, more paperwork. I don't know. I kind of think it is silly that that is going to fight crime, asking for more reports and more paperwork. Give me a break.

We are here today, Madam Speaker, to try to bring two important bills to the floor, one to help 9/11 families and the other, Madam Speaker, to keep the government open because if it shuts down amidst all of these natural disasters, things are going to be incredibly worse for everybody who right now is suffering. And this is what they come to the floor with? This is what they want to talk about?

If you want to talk about what they are about, let's look at their poorly named ``Commitment to America,'' which I guess is a rip-off on Contract with America, which basically would gut Social Security and Medicare. They want to ban abortion nationwide, and they want to make it easier for people to overturn the will of the American people in elections.

I mean, that is the radical agenda they are all pushing here.

Here we are, at this moment, trying to make sure that essential funding is there to help deal with these natural disasters, and this is what we get? This is like we hear the greatest hits from the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. They use Russian B-roll in their rollout of their Commitment to America. Come on.

At this moment, right now, we have two bills that, quite frankly, should enjoy huge bipartisan support. We ought to move forward to help the 9/11 families, and at the same time, we ought to keep this government open. Then, that gives us time to work out a longer term bill, which we can vote on after the election.

But turn on the news. Look at what is happening in Florida right now. Look at what happened in Puerto Rico. Look at what is happening in Alaska. People need help. We have a responsibility.

Look at what is happening in Ukraine. Do we support helping preserve democracy in Ukraine or not? That is what is at stake here.

So, we can try to cut a political ad on the House floor here. Fine. But let's not kind of make-believe that what my friends are trying to do is somehow real or will make any kind of a difference. It is a sound bite, plain and simple.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friend can yell all that she wants, but what I took exception to is the fact that a proposal that essentially does nothing more than call for more reports to be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow fighting crime.

I would also tell my friends, let's not talk about defunding the police when my friends on the other side of the aisle have Members that are now selling T-shirts to defund the FBI and law enforcement or the fact that many of them voted against bills last week that actually provided more funding to the police.

Come on. Reports somehow are going to fight crime? I mean, if that is your crime-fighting solution, well, America is in trouble.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this again: a reporting requirement. I mean, all of us are against violent crime, and we are against all the things that the gentleman listed. That is why we brought a group of bills to the floor last week to try to deal with some of these challenges. Again, many of my Republican colleagues voted against it.

I am not questioning why my friends bring these items to the floor. I know why they do it. It is politics 101. But I do have to say that I do have a problem when they come to the floor and say that they are making a proposal that will somehow do something. A reporting requirement, more paperwork to the Committee on the Judiciary, oh, boy, that is really going to stop carjackings, that is going to stop murder. Give me a break.

If you want to come up with something that actually does something, we are all willing to work with you. But to come to the floor to say, oh, a reporting requirement, more paperwork going to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow going to do something to prevent crime, I mean, I don't know anybody who believes that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), but I will take exception with his characterization of us passing messaging bills.

Let me just go through a few items here that we did pass and that have been signed into law:

The Honoring our PACT Act for our veterans.

The Inflation Reduction Act.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the biggest investment in infrastructure ever in this country. A bill, by the way, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, but they were at the announcement of moneys to rebuild bridges and roads in their district even though they voted against it.

The Postal Service Reform Act.

Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act.

The American Rescue Plan Act.

I could go on and on and on. These aren't messaging bills. These are major investments in our country that will have an impact for generations, that will help our children, that will help our senior citizens, that will help our veterans.

This is what we are supposed to be doing, helping uplift the American people, investing in our country. So that is not messaging. That is real work.

Today's bills aren't messaging bills, either. I mean, helping 9/11 families. That is not a messaging bill. That is real. It is something we should do. We ought to be together on that.

This continuing resolution, this is important, especially in light of all the natural disasters that are happening in this country right now.

Madam Speaker, this should be simple. We have an obligation to fund the government. We have a bipartisan bill, again, that had 72 votes in the Senate. We have a bipartisan bill that not only will keep the lights on but will provide critical funding to help communities devastated by recent natural disasters.

Now, House Republicans have made it clear that they would rather brag about their dangerous, extreme, unpopular agenda than do real work. All I can say to that is that Democrats are committed to putting people over politics.

The Republicans' radical agenda bans abortion, and we want to protect Americans' right to affordable, accessible healthcare and safeguard America's right to reproductive care.

We are here to defend Americans' right to vote. They want to make it easier to overturn elections.

We want to protect Social Security. You saw the agenda that the Republican leaders in the Senate unveiled. They gut Social Security.

There is a contrast here. But today, we are here to advance relief for communities hit by natural disasters, pass overdue benefits for 9/ 11 families, and keep the government running.

What does putting people over politics mean?

It means that we come together to make sure that the people of Florida have what they need to get through this terrible disaster.

It means that we are there for the people of Puerto Rico and that we are there for the people of Alaska, that we are there for people anywhere in this country, whether it is a red State or blue State, who are dealing with these natural catastrophes.

That is what this is about. If this went down and we shut the government down, the pain that people are already dealing with would only increase. Shame on us for doing that.

Now, I get it, Madam Speaker. There are some people here who don't really care about whether the government stays open or shuts down.

I remind you again, when my friends were in charge, when the Republicans controlled the House, when they controlled the Senate, when they controlled the White House, they shut the government down. They walked away. The longest shutdown in history. Billions and billions and billions of dollars it cost our economy.

We had to clean up their mess when we took over. Today, we are doing what is right for the American people, for all people. This is not about politics. This is about putting people over politics. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by associating myself with the chairman's very appropriate remarks about the unfolding disaster in Florida and the southeast. It is something that moves all Americans. Florida, and frankly all of the region, is in our prayers and in our thoughts as they deal with an unprecedented natural disaster.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first I will discuss is H.R. 8987, the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act. This bill would shift just under $3 billion from the CARES Act small business loan fund to the United States

Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund to compensate victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Last night at the Rules Committee we heard testimony on this bill, which unfortunately, is the only hearing this bill will receive this Congress. My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee testified at length about the efforts they have gone to in order to work with the majority on this matter. But instead of working together in a bipartisan manner, the majority instead chose to move ahead on this bill with no hearing or markup held in the committee of jurisdiction.

This represents a complete failure of regular order. Madam Speaker, it results in a lack of process that is unfair to everyone. It is especially unfair to the victims of 9/11 who deserve both a bipartisan process and a bipartisan bill that everyone can support. It did not have to be this way, and it is unfortunate that the majority decided to treat this issue with less than the gravity it deserved.

Despite these procedural failures, however, I intend to support this legislation, but we could have and should have done much better.

Our second bill is the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, a continuing resolution funding the government through December 16 of 2022.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress has waited until the last minute to take up the serious work of funding the government and keeping it open. It is equally unfortunate that our only option for doing so is the flawed, inadequate bill that does not meet the needs of the American people.

Despite this bill's flaws, there is much to like in it and much that I do support. I voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill back in March, and this bill would maintain those spending levels through the middle of December. I support additional funding for Ukraine as they seek to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's unjust and illegal invasion, and I support additional funds for disaster relief.

But just as important as what is included in this bill is what is not included in this bill and should have been.

It is undeniable that we are facing a humanitarian crisis on our southern border, caused in large part by the Biden administration's unwillingness to confront what is staring them in the face. The administration asked for $1.8 billion to assist migrants, which they have received in this legislation, but they did not ask for a single penny to secure the border.

The Biden administration has sought to add workers elsewhere in the government, like 87,000 new employees at the IRS, but they did not ask for money to add any new Border Patrol agents to help address this Biden-made crisis on the southern border. This could and should have been addressed in this bill, but it is not.

Similarly, the bill does nothing to address the high price of energy or provide new sources of energy. We should be doing everything we can to provide secure, reliable, and inexpensive energy to the American people. Instead, the President is spending his time chastising energy companies. We should have addressed this issue in this bill, too, but we did not.

Nor does this bill address other crises affecting the American people, including inflation and the economic recession, both caused by the reckless and profligate spending policies of the Biden administration and this majority. I could go on and on, but the point remains: so much should have been in this bill but is not.

I hope that if my friends in the majority take anything from today's discussion, it is this: it is high time for them to get serious about appropriations and about holding bipartisan discussions with Republicans on full-year spending bills.

Consider where we are: the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say, passed all 12 bills out of committee this summer, yet, as of today, only six have passed the floor. It is the majority's responsibility to bring those bills to the floor.

In the Senate, which Democrats also control, the record is even worse. Not a single bill has been passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition, no serious negotiations have taken place between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and the Senate. These negotiations have been postponed all summer and into the fall while the House takes up one political messaging bill after another.

Madam Speaker, we need to focus on the serious business of funding government. In order to accomplish that goal and achieve a bipartisan agreement, four conditions will have to be met.

First, defense spending will have to go up to meet the level authorized in the fiscal year 2023 NDAA. The level included in the House defense appropriations bill is wholly inadequate to meet America's defense needs and must go up to reach a final deal.

Second, non-defense discretionary spending will have to come down. The House non-defense appropriations bills were all marked up at a bloated level of spending which cannot be justified. These numbers must be reduced for an agreement to be had.

Third, longstanding bipartisan pro-life policies that have historically been carried in appropriations bills must be restored. The majority stripped these out in the Appropriations Committee this year, but they must go back in. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough, Madam Speaker. No Republicans--and I mean no Republicans--will vote for these bills unless these bipartisan pro-life riders are restored.

Fourth, the 12 House Appropriations Committee bills include countless poison pills that have to come out. These are liberal policy riders on all matters of topics, ranging from climate change to abortion to labor law. They have to come out to reach a bipartisan deal. The appropriations bills cannot pass this House and pass the Senate unless there is a bipartisan deal.

Madam Speaker, we can reach a bipartisan, bicameral, full-year spending deal if my friends in the majority get serious about negotiating. At the end of the day, Republicans must be included in these negotiations. If the majority continues to dither, we are headed for a year-long continuing resolution. That is a bad outcome for the institution, a bad outcome for the government, and a bad outcome for the American people.

When the majority begins to seriously negotiate on a bipartisan appropriations package, I will certainly be there to help. But neither I, nor many of my colleagues, will participate in kicking the can down the road so my Democratic friends can ignore their responsibility to govern until after the upcoming election.

I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and my fellow member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7967, the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, for immediate consideration. The bill will ensure that the perpetrators of violent crimes are held accountable for their actions and that victims of violent crimes receive the justice that they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, America's largest cities are in the midst of a wave of violent crime, making some of them nearly unlivable. This spike in violent crime has many causes, but one factor is undeniably making the problem worse: That is the fuzzy-headed ideology followed by woke prosecutors who are refusing to do their jobs and prosecute violent offenders.

As part of the Commitment to America, Republicans have made it clear

that we will fund the police; that we will take clear steps to stop the scourge of fentanyl coming over the southern border into our Nation; and that we will crack down on prosecutors and district attorneys who refuse to prosecute violent criminals.

H.R. 7967 fulfills that commitment. It would require the same prosecutors to report annually on the cases they receive and their decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

This reporting would allow the citizens of our great cities to see, once and for all, just what this wave of progressive woke prosecutors is actually up to, and just how many violent crime cases they are refusing to prosecute out of ideology.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend, the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend.

Crime is also a problem all across the country, and we will work with you on the 9/11 survivors bill, which I point out, again, was originally my colleague from New York's bill as opposed to a Democratic proposal. But I will give you credit for picking up a good idea that my friend originated.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my friend, to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, it has become all too common in recent years to learn about the perpetrators of violent crime who should have been locked up for earlier incidents. All too often, we hear that a woke prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against a criminal for an earlier violent act, only for that same criminal to then offend again and again. As part of our Commitment to America, House Republicans will take action to end this practice.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) to speak more about this

issue and the solution contained in H.R. 7967.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is deeply unfortunate that we have once again waited until the last minute to fund the government. With no time left for negotiations, the majority is putting forward a bill to fund the government that was not subject to bipartisan negotiations in the House. It is no surprise, then, that this bill fails to accomplish so many things that are necessary to address the crises currently confronting the Nation.

I am an appropriator, and I would advise my friend that the Appropriations Committee--and I give great credit to my friend, the chairwoman of that committee, Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, and the ranking member, Ms. Granger from Texas--actually got all 12 bills done by the end of July and out of committee.

Six of those have come across the floor. That is a good thing. Six others

have not. That includes, by the way, the bills to defend the United States of America, the largest spending bill. It includes the bill to defend our southern border.

The reality is, they haven't come to the floor because my friends don't have the votes to pass them. Many of their own Members want to reduce the size of defense as opposed to increase it in a dangerous world. Many of their friends simply don't want to do anything to secure the southern border.

Now, the reality is, in the end, I think we will get both those things done, and there will have to be a bipartisan negotiation to do it. There has been absolutely no negotiation since July in the House.

I also point to the United States Senate, which is not the responsibility of my friends, but their party controls it. That body has not moved a single bill out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Not one.

Now we are asked, because we are in an emergency, to kick the can down the road. My friends have had months to deal with this issue and to engage in serious bipartisanship. They have chosen not to do that. They would rather do messaging bill after messaging bill after messaging bill. That is what we have been dealing with.

Frankly, the Rules Committee, unusually, has become a committee of original jurisdiction in bill after bill after bill because those bills have not gone through the committee. They are raced through the Rules Committee to come to the floor to make a political point on the eve of an election. That is a bad way to govern.

Now, I am hopeful once we get to the other side of the election, my friends will sit down, and we will arrive at a bipartisan agreement on funding the government, which is the primary responsibility of Congress, in my view. But so far those negotiations have not taken place. We don't have agreed-upon top lines.

My friends can't pass important bills, so they are left to linger. And then they come to us at the very last minute and say, gosh, you have to help us here in this emergency.

We are going to pass the bills. The government is not going to shut down. Nobody here has the illusion that it will. But we should not be in this situation. Both sides have done this, I will grant my friend that. But this is a particularly egregious process of no negotiations on things like defense and securing the southern border.

We live in a dangerous world. We don't need a CR in defense; we need a bill. Actually, the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee produced a bill. It is just $30 billion more than the President asked for because that is what that committee felt we needed. It passed on a bipartisan basis.

Why can't we move the appropriations level up to do what a Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee asked us to do?

Our friends have not wanted to deal with that issue.

We know we have a crisis on the southern border. You can turn on the television and see it every night. You can look at the fentanyl pouring into the country. You can see the tragedy of human trafficking.

Is there anything in this bill that asked us to do anything different, anything new?

Has any legislation come to the floor to do that?

No. We are just asked, please allow us to continue the current state of affairs to exist on the southern border. That is a travesty.

When you say, well, we are bringing irrelevant issues, the reality is you won't bring the relevant issues to the floor. You won't bring the relevant appropriations bills to the floor.

But make no mistake, Republicans have put forward a Commitment to America to address the concerns of our citizens:

We will fund the police and uphold law and order.

We will add needed security infrastructure at the southern border.

We will achieve longer and healthier lives for our citizens.

We will ensure that America has an all-of-the-above energy policy that provides consistent, low-cost energy to keep our economy strong. That is something my friends don't want to deal with.

We will end the majority and the Biden administration's reckless spending policies that have led to record inflation and stifling economic recession.

This administration inherited a V-shaped recovery, and a 1.4 percent inflation rate. Now we are in a recession with a 40-year-high, 8.3 percent inflation rate. That is a record of disaster. We ought to be talking about those issues, not maintaining the status quo.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to comment on one portion of the rule, H.R. 8987, which is a bill that is incredibly important to me and to those that I represent. As a matter of fact, I drafted the legislation. On August 5, I had introduced the language as part of H.R. 8667. We garnered bipartisan support for this very important bill.

What the bill does is finally make whole so many of our families that were affected by 9/11 because they lost loved ones, but they were not compensated properly under the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorist Fund.

So we are talking about 5,347 widows and children that were excluded from this fund by this body; and it was an injustice that should have never been allowed to happen. As a result of their initial exclusion, widows and children missed the first two payments of the USVSST fund, creating a massive disparity between their restorative justice payments and others that were included.

This bill would catch up those widows and children to the other victim groups and ensure that, moving forward, they are no longer left out, forgotten, or excluded. So this bill is truly about fairness and doing what is right for the wives and the children or the husbands and the children of our first responders killed on September 11.

Twenty-one years later, this House is finally going to do the right thing, and I am very happy to have played a part in helping them move this forward.

In the gallery I have a special guest, Angela Mistrulli, who is the head of the 9/11 Children for Justice. She is a tireless advocate who has been affected personally, and I thank her for working with our office over the last 6 months and the advocacy of all of her members in seeing this through. I hope all my colleagues support this on the floor when it comes up later today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge that we amend the rule to also include H.R. 7967, which is the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act. My legislation would hold prosecutors accountable and create transparency by letting the public know how many cases prosecutors are declining to prosecute, the number of offenses committed by career criminals, and the number of criminals released.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen a disturbing trend in progressive district attorneys in cities across the country who are refusing to prosecute violent criminal offenders. Look no further than my city of New York, our city of New York, where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg released a Day 1 memo initially directing his staff not to prosecute certain crimes, including drug possession, trespassing, sex trading, driving with a suspended license, resisting arrest, and public obscenity. He even directed his staff to downgrade felony charges filed by our police, including armed robbery, weapons charges, and drug dealing.

Worst of all, his office will no longer seek sentences of life without parole, which means that the most heinous murderers, including terrorists, serial killers, cop killers, and perps who kill young children in connection with sex crimes will be released back onto our streets in 20 years or less.

These policies have sent a clear message to the criminals. It is, go ahead, break the law because we will not enforce it. With prosecutors that refuse to prosecute, violent career super-criminals are free to wreak havoc on our streets.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question today so we can hold woke prosecutors accountable for failing to do their jobs and protect.

We want to be able to add this legislation to the rule because it is incredibly important that the public knows which prosecutors are refusing to do their job; and as we saw in San Francisco, they did repeal one of their prosecutors. Many States, like ours, do not have a recall law, but this would give them the information they need to make informed decisions when it comes to selecting who is going to be the prosecutors for their cities, because prosecutors should actually be prosecuting crimes. They should not be acting like criminal defense attorneys.

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't believe in transparency, that they believe this information should be kept from the public. But these prosecutors work for us.

Quite frankly, crime has soared in my city. People are getting killed. People are getting assaulted. Nearly every single category of crime has risen in New York City, and our prosecutors are refusing to put people behind bars.

If the Democrats feel that public safety and crime skyrocketing in America's cities is not an issue, that explains why you support defunding the police, bail reform, and all of these ridiculous policies.

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole for yielding me the time.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, we are seeing crises, manufactured crises. Let's just look at a few in turn.

We have a manufactured economic crisis. The inflation rate has increased by 550 percent since January of 2021. Total government spending during that time has increased over $9 trillion. This is out- of-control spending that is leading to this inflation. It is costing the average American family $6,000 a year.

Let me just put that in perspective. That would be like going up to a family and saying, can you give me 1 month's paycheck? Most cannot do that. The inflation has deprived the average American family of 1 month's pay, and this CR does absolutely nothing to address inflation. It does nothing to bring the economic crisis to an end.

It just doesn't stop there. Let's talk about the manufactured energy crisis. The day, literally, day 1 that Biden took office, he declared war on American energy. He shut down the Keystone Pipeline and, as a result, American families are paying higher and higher prices at the pump.

We are going to face record-level energy costs going into this winter, and yet, this CR does absolutely nothing to address the energy crisis.

Let's talk about crime. There is a crime wave going on all over country. Cities across the Nation are witnessing the results of the defund the police

movement. Homicide rates across this country have increased roughly 50 percent, compared to this time in 2019.

In my home State of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia has recorded over 400 murders so far this year. Philadelphia is on track to see the highest homicide rate in recorded history, and it is because of the defund the police movement. It is because of Democrat rule.

It is not just Philly. Los Angeles, in 2021, L.A. defunded the police by $150 million. What did they get? Homicide rates went up 23 percent, yet this CR does nothing to combat the crime wave that we are seeing. It does nothing to re-fund the police.

Let's talk about fentanyl. In my district, and across the country, communities are facing the opioid epidemic, and that is a direct result of fentanyl flooding across our porous southern border.

The devastation is because of Biden's failed policies, the open border policies that he has instituted. And just don't take my word for it. The DEA Commissioner said that the open border policies are killing Americans ``at rates never seen before.''

Yet, this CR does nothing to address the fentanyl issue. It does nothing. It is because the base of the Democratic Party, the woke yuppies who stay at home and are on Zoom classes all day view this issue as a Cracker Barrel problem, something that will never affect them because they don't shop at Walmart. They drive a hybrid, not a Chevy Silverado; so that is why we are not seeing urgency on the fentanyl crisis.

Let me just put it in perspective. Fentanyl overdose leads to about 300 deaths every single day in this country. That is the equivalent of an airliner going down every single day. If an airliner went down just once a week in this country, it would be declared an emergency within 2 to 3 weeks.

Yet, we are seeing the same death every single day, and because it is viewed as a fly-over problem, an issue that is facing people that don't live on the coast, no one cares about it, and this CR does nothing to address it.

It is just not fentanyl. Let's talk about the crisis of immigration. Since Biden took office, over 3.5 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border. This CR does nothing to add additional border security; nothing for additional infrastructure; nothing for advanced technology.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the gentleman from Oklahoma because he has been spot-on throughout this whole debate.

I rise to oppose the previous question so that the House can consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that crime is completely out of control in this country. Annual homicide records have been broken in at least a dozen major cities. Brazen smash-and-grab robberies in broad daylight are a daily occurrence. Killings, severe beatings, armed robberies, carjackings, sexual assaults, arson, and looting have become a common feature on the evening news.

The gentleman on the other side of the aisle asked why we are doing a bill like this. Turn on the news and you will see. Crime in America is at historic levels.

Yet, rogue prosecutors in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York City, and Milwaukee continue to release predators from custody almost as fast as the police can arrest them.

The use of no-cash bail policies, plea bargains, and a complete refusal to put dangerous repeat offenders behind bars has demoralized our police and endangered our communities, and America's most iconic cities resemble a Third World country.

Take Milwaukee County. Here is a quote from the district attorney in Milwaukee County. If you want to know why there should be data kept on this and why the American people should know what is going on as a result of prosecutors' actions in cities across America, here is a quote: ``Is there going to be an individual I divert . . . who is going to go out and kill somebody? You bet.''

That district attorney is still there in Milwaukee County. He is the person who gave a low-cash bail to the man who committed the Waukesha Christmas parade killings last year, killing six people, out on low- cash bail, injuring 60.

There is a problem in America, and it needs to be dealt with. Americans are sick and tired of the lawlessness, and they are demanding accountability. That is what this is about, accountability.

Madam Speaker, each year, jurisdictions across the United States benefit from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which provides funding to States, Tribes, and local governments to support a range of justice-related programs.

If we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule, calling for immediate consideration of the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, offered by my friend from New York City, which will apply a reporting requirement to these grants.

It would, among other things, mandate that district attorneys report to Congress how often they follow through on holding criminals charged with violent crimes, like murder, rape, arson, crimes involving illegal guns, and motor vehicle theft, accountable.

They would also be required to disclose how often they prosecute the initial charges, how often they secure convictions, whether or not those charged were already on probation or parole, and how many offenders were released without bail.

Madam Speaker, the American people need to know if the people they have entrusted to keep their neighborhoods safe are actually using their tax dollars to finance this crime wave. It is time to end the policy of underwriting progressive policies that endanger the lives and livelihoods of decent, hardworking Americans, and that starts with transparency.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with us for safer communities and oppose the previous question.