Expressing support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

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

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I begin today with a story. Once upon a time in Congress, House Republicans put forward their top agenda, a package of bills so crucial, so urgent, that teeing them up for consideration was one of the very first things we did on the floor of this Congress-- after, of course, Kevin McCarthy's 15 votes for Speaker.

Tucked into this package was a little bill about supporting the police, H. Con. Res. 5, a simple, nonbinding resolution, really, that didn't do much. It was purely symbolic, but it did express support for our Nation's police, all of our Nation's police.

But something mysterious happened, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will join me in trying to solve that mystery today.

Instead of bringing their bill up right away, Republicans waited, and they waited, and they waited. They waited until this week, and they brought up a bill, but something changed. See, in the original bill, the language read that Congress expresses support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``Nation's,'' ``Nation's.'' It was about all of our police. In their new bill, the one that we are considering today, they only express support for local enforcement officers.

Here is the new bill, Mr. Speaker. We see the word ``local,'' ``local''--nothing about our Nation's law enforcement officers, just ``local.'' Huh. That is weird. What a strange change.

It is National Police Week, but they took out all of our national police agencies. Democrats searched and searched and searched for a reason. We looked high and low in the Rules Committee, but we couldn't find an answer.

Not a single person, not one Republican, Mr. Speaker, has been able to articulate to us who made that change, when it was made, or, most importantly, why it was made.

No one was able to explain to us why Republicans edited their bill from saying ``any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies'' to any ``efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.''

Here is the important thing, and call it the moral of the story, if you will. The change was not without consequence because what the GOP did was cut out every officer at the FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Protective Service, and Secret Service. They cut out every officer at the United States Capitol Police. They cut out the police who are standing outside these Chamber doors right now, keeping us safe. They cut out all the police who rushed to this building to keep all of my GOP friends safe on January 6, 2021.

Apparently, our Republican colleagues think National Police Week shouldn't include our national police.

I wish I could say that this was an unsolved mystery, I really do, but the answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican position is that they only support some police.

The new Republican position as of 2 weeks ago is that they want to defund police. They voted to cut COPS grants, fire 400 local police officers, defund the FBI, and cut grant funding for State and local law enforcement agencies.

The new Republican position, as put forward by their frontrunner for President, is that we ought to pardon the convicted criminals, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis who beat cops, crushed them in doors, and hit them with fire extinguishers on January 6.

The new Republican position is to give George Santos due process before he is kicked out but to deport legal immigrants who haven't even been charged with a crime.

Here is what I see today, Mr. Speaker. It seems like Republicans back the blue until they realize that laws apply to them, too.

That gets me to my final point because an important change is happening here today, and I want law enforcement officers across this country to take note. I know many of them are watching because it is police week, National Police Week, and here is what I want them to know: Democrats want to keep communities safe.

Democrats want to address gun violence in our schools, an issue I hear from police officers about all the time.

Democrats want to invest in programs that keep our communities safe, programs that get to the root causes of crime.

Democrats want to make sure police aren't put in situations they aren't trained to handle.

Democrats have passed bills that protect our communities and support our police, bills to help cops with PTSD and to invest in small police departments.

Republicans want to wrap their arms around the police while they cut funding.

Make sure we don't forget this, Mr. Speaker: 21 Republicans voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police-- 21.

Republicans changed their bill to deliberately exclude America's national police agencies from National Police Week, which dishonors and disrespects the Capitol Police officers who protect our Capitol Building.

Republicans are using our law enforcement officers like political pawns. They are putting politics over public safety.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican friends have lost their way on law enforcement today, and it is clear who is in charge. It is not Speaker McCarthy. It is the most extreme of the extreme, and once again, the American people lose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota if she could respond to a question that we couldn't get an answer to in the Rules Committee last night as to why Republicans did not bring up their original bill, H. Con. Res. 5, the one that they made in order with their opening day rules package.

I don't know whether she can explain it to me. I am happy to yield her some time to do that. The silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, because the question that we asked in the Rules Committee last night that nobody could answer is, in their original bill we honored our entire Nation's law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, who protected us on January 6. However, the bill they bring up today changed all that and basically narrowed it down to local police but took out any recognition of our Capitol Police or any of our Federal law enforcement officers.

The gentlewoman will not answer the question. Nobody in the Rules Committee would answer the question.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, who was talking about defunding the police, I will tell you, when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, we didn't bring any resolutions to the floor to defund the police.

Two weeks ago, my Republican friends voted to cut money for local law enforcement and for our Federal law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who voted to defund the police. Just don't believe me; you can Google it. Check it out. Two weeks ago, their bill that they brought to the floor will cut law enforcement agencies.

Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the idea that my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police from a resolution honoring our Nation's police is beyond the pale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice regarding the cuts proposed within the Republicans' debt limit bill.

My Republican friends are actively cutting funding from Federal law enforcement that work to protect us every day. Their plan would also cut funding for nearly 400 local law enforcement positions. I mean, Republicans cannot be serious about supporting law enforcement when they are actively using their majority to defund them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana began her remarks by talking about National Police Week, but the resolution doesn't honor our national police. The Republicans made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police, FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Protective Service, and the Secret Service. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana to help me understand why the Republicans changed the wording of their resolution. I am happy to yield her any time.

Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from Minnesota says we are playing word games. No, we are not. The only people playing word games are my Republican friends. They introduced a bill that honored all of our police, and then they changed it. They made a conscious decision to change it because I think they are afraid of the extreme of the extreme of their base that somehow don't want to admit that anything bad happened here on January 6, and they are afraid if they honor the Capitol Police that somehow their extreme base would be offended. That is just sick, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

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, Social Security and Medicare are vital to many of our constituents' economic health security, and yet many of my Republican friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these critical programs. Once again, I am offering my friends the opportunity to reassure the American people, not just with rhetoric but with their votes, that they will not cut these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman, again, the only people who in this Chamber voted to defund the police are my Republican friends. Two weeks ago, you all voted for a bill to cut money for local law enforcement, every one of you.

Let's talk about the police that you are not honoring here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN story about two FBI agents who were shot and killed last week, and yet they have been taken off the list of law enforcement officials that we are honoring.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the names of the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the Capitol riots: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida, D.C. Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to also include in the Record a CNN story about the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' on a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals for the January 6 police officers.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York whatever time he needs, but I guess he left the floor. I would like somebody to explain to me why Republicans decided to change the wording of the bill that they introduced at the opening day session of Congress to exclude all of our Federal

police officers and exclude our Capitol Police.

I don't quite understand why they did that except I think they are afraid of their base, the extreme element of their base who basically do not want to honor them. I find that really disturbing.

Again, talking about defunding the police, the only people in this Chamber who voted to cut money for the police are on the other side of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman who just spoke neglected to say is he only wants to honor some of our police officers. They made a conscious decision to, quite frankly, remove our national police, our Capitol Police, from the resolution that they were originally included in.

He said don't believe us. Well, the words are here. This is their original bill: ``H. Con. Res. 5, Expressing support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies.'' Their new bill was changed to just say ``local law enforcement.''

They made a conscious decision to do that. The gentleman keeps on quoting, and there is an old saying that the only thing that really matters around here is votes. Everything else is B.S. We can play this game of quotes versus votes, but the bottom line is the votes are what matter and what matters the most.

My friends on the other side of the aisle 2 weeks ago brought a bill that they all voted for that cut money for law enforcement at every level. They voted for that. That is their record. I hope my friends will appreciate that.

As we honor our Nation's police officers, as we should, I have to say it is disappointing that we are only honoring some, that a conscious, deliberate decision was made to exclude others. I find that really, really disturbing, and, quite frankly, we tried to fix it last night in the Rules Committee. We tried to fix it in the Judiciary Committee, and all the Republicans voted it down.

I urge people to look at the votes. The votes are what matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman runs out, I will just say you can yell all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman, voted to cut money for local law enforcement

Mr. Speaker, what they did is they voted to cut a million dollars per State

in Federal money for our local law enforcement. They would fire, lay off, 400 local police officers. That is what would happen if their bill that they voted on 2 weeks ago became law. It could cut COPS grants. It would cut other DOJ funding for our local police.

The gentleman who just had a meltdown on the floor, screaming and yelling, comes on the floor all the time to talk about our border. I mean, my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove Customs and Border Protection from the bill honoring our law enforcement.

I would like somebody to answer why. They removed the Capitol Police. They removed the FBI. They also removed CBP.

Mr. Speaker, their bill, according to the Department of Justice, if it became a law, the reduction in support for our police and Federal law enforcement would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the following: 154,000 pounds of cocaine not seized, 859 pounds of fentanyl and 1,948 pounds of heroin not seized, 17,148 pounds of methamphetamine not seized, $9 million in currency not seized, 561 criminals not arrested, 57,594 apprehensions not made, and 361 people not rescued. The gentleman says he is being fiscally responsible, and that is why they voted for these cuts? Enough.

Again, can somebody please explain to me from the party that voted to defund the police why the omission, why were the words of the Republican bill changed to omit all of these other brave men and women who are protecting people all across this country and the Capitol Police who protect us every single day?

By the way, the gentleman who just spoke was among those who voted not to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police. Thank goodness 400 Members, Democrats and Republicans, disagreed with him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from MSNBC titled: ``The list of Republicans open to `defunding' the FBI keeps growing.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am concerned because, on the one hand, my Republican colleagues say they support the police. On the other hand, their own Members are calling on Congress to defund Federal law enforcement.

They want to defund the FBI. They want to defund ATF. They want to defund DOJ.

I guess it just shows that Republicans support only some of the police. In fact, there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who is selling ``Defund the FBI'' T-shirts on her web page.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked over and over and over again why the Republican bill was changed to exclude a whole bunch of law enforcement officers on the Federal level, including the Capitol Police. As those who are watching this debate saw, every time I wanted to yield to get an answer, there was silence.

Nobody can explain why this happened. Nobody will help us solve this mystery as to why they decided not to honor a whole bunch of our brave men

and women who protect us in so many ways all across this country. It is baffling to me that this is where we are.

I began by telling a story, and let me end with telling a story.

Mr. Speaker, I was here on January 6. I was in the Speaker's chair on January 6. I was the last person off the House floor. I saw everybody who was here in this Chamber, including some of my colleagues on the Republican side, cowering behind Capitol Police officers because they were afraid for their lives. It was a terrible, terrible day.

Luckily, nobody here was injured, none of us, none of the Members of Congress or our staff. The Capitol Police protected us that day. I mean, we owe them our lives.

Today, as we honor our national police, my Republican friends thought it was appropriate to remove them from the list of people being honored. I find that disgraceful.

I can't even imagine what the thinking was to make that kind of decision. It is so insulting and so offensive to the people who protected us that day and protect us each and every day. I don't understand that.

I can't get a response, but we know what is going on here. We know that they removed the Capitol Police and that they removed some of these Federal law enforcement agencies because they were afraid they were going to lose votes on their side, that some of their Members would not vote to honor all of our law enforcement officials. Let that sink in for a minute.

This should have been a day of unity. This should have been a truly bipartisan endeavor to get us legislation to the floor that everybody could support, that we could all say thank you to our police. But, no, it is politicized.

They get up here and start quoting people on defund the police, but they don't tell anybody that they voted to defund the police 2 weeks ago. It is public record. Every one of them did, including the gentleman who was down here screaming.

He gets on the floor all the time and talks about the need that we have to better protect our border, yet the people who are charged with protecting our border were removed from the list of people we were honoring.

This is not right by any measure. It is not right. I am so disappointed that my Republican friends have decided to politicize this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, and I urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule.

This is beneath this institution. This is not honoring our police. This is politicizing our police. This is saying to some of our police that we don't value their service. It is saying to the Capitol Police that we don't value their service.

How dare anybody on the other side suggest that? How dare you bring a bill to the floor that does just that? This is sickening.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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