Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles".

Mr. 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, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican joint resolution, a resolution taken straight from Trump's Project 2025 playbook. The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to fully repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, rule setting new protective air pollution standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.

Now, this resolution is yet another Republican effort to attack the Clean Air Act and roll back commonsense air pollution protections. It puts the profits of corporate polluters over the health and safety of the American people.

Not only is this CRA ripped right out of Trump's extreme Project 2025 playbook, it is just the latest attempt by House Republicans to do the bidding of their Big Oil allies and prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment.

Instead of focusing on funding the government, which is set to expire at the end of this month, Republicans are wasting time bringing up this resolution they know has zero chance of becoming law. Even Senate Republicans have publicly admitted that they have abandoned their strategy of using this CRA this Congress.

So one really has to ask the question: What are we doing here?

This is yet another example of House Republicans failing to be serious about governing or working to implement policies that actually benefit the American people.

Americans have the right to clean air and a safe climate, and EPA's clean vehicle rule would put us on the road to achieve those rights. The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, making up nearly one-third of total pollution in the United States. This pollution affects more than 130 million Americans who live in counties with unhealthy air. Even worse, air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in our Nation every year. Thankfully, EPA is working to address this dangerous air pollution with the tools that Congress gave it.

Now, EPA's clean vehicle standards will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2027 and 2055, that is equivalent to four times the emissions from the entire transportation sector in 2021. This incredible air pollution reduction will result in tangible benefits for Americans across the country. The rule is projected to yield approximately $100 billion in net benefits each year.

Clean vehicle standards are also a win for consumers and our economy. EPA projects U.S. auto manufacturing employment growth of up to 188,000 jobs in 2032 thanks to this rule. That is on top of the existing 200,000 jobs that have already been added in clean vehicle manufacturing since the start of the Biden-Harris administration.

Once the standards take effect, American families are expected to save an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle, including fuel, operation, and maintenance costs.

So today we are going to hear a lot of false claims from my Republican colleagues. They are going to falsely say that this rule is a mandate, but let me be perfectly clear. EPA's standards are not an electric vehicle mandate. They are technology-neutral and performance based, as required by the Clean Air Act. Auto manufacturers have the flexibility to meet the standards with a wide range of clean vehicle technologies, like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell, internal combustion engines, and full battery electric.

Manufacturers can choose the best option for them and to meet the needs of their consumers.

EPA worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that the final rule is ambitious and achievable and benefits all Americans. That is why EPA's final clean vehicle rule is supported by a diverse coalition of autoworkers, automakers, and public health and environmental groups.

Now, the Biden-Harris rule accelerates the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies that will offer expanded, better choices for consumers, lower costs, and make sure that the United States dominates the next century's worth of clean technology.

This Republican resolution reverses course, putting all of this at risk, and replacing it with nothing. What is more, it also prevents any future administration from taking similar action, and that is a recipe for disaster for our economy, the American people, and for our climate.

Madam Speaker, I just received an SAP, the Statement of Administration Policy, from the Biden administration. I am not going to read it all, but I just want to read the last part of it where it says that this rule is supported by U.S. automakers and autoworkers and that repealing it would jeopardize development in the critical technology sector, ceding the electric vehicle and battery future to global competitors like China.

I hear all the time my colleagues on the other side talking about Communist China and talking about Beijing and how we are not keeping up with them.

Well, the majority will be doing exactly the opposite with this repeal of the rule. Republicans will give Communist China the competitive edge.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 136, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of our Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing arguments from my Republican colleagues that the EPA is forcing electric vehicles onto American consumers, but nobody's forcing anyone to buy an electric vehicle, and to claim that is happening is just false.

Expanding and diversifying our domestic vehicle manufacturing industry will increase consumer choice and provide more options for all Americans.

The rule that the Republicans seek to repeal today is actually supported by the auto manufacturers as well as auto unions.

We should be empowering industry to innovate and create better- performing, more affordable options for our constituents. This is about options. There is no mandate.

EPA's consistent vehicle emission standards have empowered decades of innovation in the vehicle industry, which have benefited all Americans.

If we want to compete with China, we have to continue to provide choice. We have to continue to make sure that electric vehicles and other options are available. Otherwise, we are going to fall behind.

I urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, may I ask again as to the time remaining on each side?

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

Madam Speaker, we are not mandating EVs. We are not forcing anybody to use EVs. I am going to say that over and over again. However, what we are doing is trying to reduce air pollution. This resolution is a step backwards in addressing dangerous air pollution that contributes to climate change and contributes to asthma and all kinds of health disorders.

The transportation sector is responsible for a significant portion of our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air pollutants that harm human health. Over 130 million people across the country live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution.

Even worse, air pollution is associated with 100,000 premature deaths every year. Let me repeat that because I don't think my Republican colleagues are getting how serious this is. Every year, 100,000 people across the country die sooner than they are expected to because of air pollution.

Congress directed the EPA to protect public health and the environment and granted it several tools to do so through the Clean Air Act. One of these tools is the authority to set vehicle emission standards for harmful pollutants emitted by vehicles, which is exactly what EPA did when it proposed and finalized the rule that the Republicans are attempting to repeal today.

This reduction in air pollution will result in fewer heart attacks, fewer respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, fewer cases of aggravated asthma, and fewer cases of decreased lung function. The rule is also projected to prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths. With this CRA, Republicans want to wipe out these significant air pollution reductions and associated public health benefits. It is that simple.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I grew up with my father and my uncle having a used car business, and I know that because we still lease the business to another person who operates it today. They are still selling used cars. People will buy gas-powered cars, hybrids, and electric vehicles. There is nothing in here that mandates that they have to buy an electric vehicle.

The bottom line is, if we don't continue to invest in American innovation and help auto manufacturers and look for various options, we are not going to be able to compete with China.

If you pass this resolution, you are making it much, much more difficult for us to compete with China.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, how much time is remaining on each side?

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

House Democrats are united in our understanding that we must decarbonize our transportation sector while preserving consumer choice and driving technological innovation in the domestic auto industry. This resolution would undermine our ability to achieve these goals. Instead of backtracking on decades of progress like the CRA would do, I offer a different path forward.

First, we must protect the integrity of the Clean Air Act and EPA's authority to set forward-looking vehicle emission standards that protect public health and the environment.

Next, we need to foster innovation and technological development in the clean transportation sector.

Finally, we must continue to build on the historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law.

With this CRA, my Republican colleagues are attempting to strand these incredible investments and stop this tremendous progress. When Republicans oppose our investments in America's manufacturing, which is what they are doing today, they are advocating for American industry to stand down.

Rather than ceding ground to Communist China, House Democrats are investing in America's ability to compete and beat out our economic competition. That is why we have to oppose this bill.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 136) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 136.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 136, led by Energy and Commerce Committee member Republican Representative John James.

Over and over again, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has doubled down on its radical rush-to-green energy agenda.

The EPA's latest tailpipe emissions rule is not really about reducing air pollution. It is about forcing Americans to drive electric vehicles.

By the EPA's own estimation, the new rule will effectively require at least two-thirds of all new cars in the United States to be 100 percent electric by 2032, not hybrids, not plug-in hybrids, not hydrogen, not any other clean technology.

This unreasonable rule is just another example of how the Biden- Harris administration's rush-to-green agenda is handing China the keys to America's energy future, jeopardizing our auto industry, and forcing people to buy unaffordable electric vehicles they do not want.

Here are the facts: In May, the average fully electric model was $17,326 more expensive than the average gas-burning compact crossover.

At the beginning of this year, nearly 5,000 American car dealers sent a letter to the President demanding that he hit the brakes on the EPA's unrealistic agenda after EVs stacked up on their car lots.

Moreover, recently, J.D. Power cut its projected sales of EVs by 25 percent, citing increased competition in the market for gas-powered vehicle alternatives.

Despite all of this, the Biden-Harris EPA has continued its de facto EV mandates, undeterred by the reality of what Americans actually want.

Instead of forcing Americans to spend more money on vehicles that they don't want to buy, on vehicles that only advance a political agenda, let's get back to the work of making sure that people have access to affordable, reliable, and functional means of transportation.

To ensure Americans drive what vehicle best suits their needs, vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 136 to put an end to the EPA's unrealistic tailpipe emissions rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), the champion and prime sponsor of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, all the incentives go away when the mandate takes full effect.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the auto capital of the world. We want to keep it that way and stop imposing China's agenda on us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), chairman of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, the numbers that we are quoting are from the final rule. We are not making it up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who knows a little bit about cars.

Madam Speaker, we can build one battery electric vehicle for the same raw

materials as six plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles. For one of the cars that EPA is going to mandate that Americans buy, we could build six plug-in or 90 hybrid vehicles for the same raw materials. Yet, the EPA is mandating electric, battery electric vehicles. That is how many batteries you can make with the same amount of minerals. Ninety hybrid electric vehicles reduces 37 times as much carbon as one of these vehicles the EPA is mandating, the 100 percent battery electric.

Let's get back to reality. America is leading the world in technology and innovation that is bringing down carbon emissions. Let's do it the American way, not this China forced-mandate policy on America.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

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

EVs are fine technologies for those who can afford them and use them. However, they should not be forced on people against their will when their means, their circumstance, or their preference requires traditional gas, diesel, or a hybrid vehicle.

EVs come with serious negative impacts for consumers, American security, and the environment. Over its lifetime, an EV only has lower emissions than a gas-powered vehicle if it travels between 28,069 and 68,160 miles and remains in service for more than 10 years, circumstances that are not being realized today.

EVs are not for everyone. Just because some people like them doesn't mean that they are going to work.

EV batteries rely on five critical minerals: lithium, cobalt, magnesium, nickel, and graphite. Compared to the conventional internal combustion engine, an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs.

Further, IEA estimates that the demand for lithium will increase 43 times by 2040. Critical minerals are critical for EVs and batteries, and China dominates much of the supply chains for EV batteries.

Additionally, raw ore needs to be processed into usable minerals. Again, China does 100 percent of the processing.

A rush to EVs will directly increase our reliance on China. China controls 90 percent of the EV supply chain. It also currently controls 78 percent of the global EV battery production, 90 percent of the global rare earth element refining capacity, 90 percent of refining, 70 percent of global cobalt refining capacity, 68 percent of global nickel refining capacity, and 50 percent of global lithium refining capacity.

What are we doing in the United States about that? Nothing. This administration is shutting down mining and processing. It takes, on average, 7 years just to permit anything in the United States of America.

This is a mandate from the EPA that is not in the best interest of America and not in the best interest of consumers. Let's vote ``yes'' today on this resolution. Let's unleash American energy and American innovation in the car sector.

We have led the world in the last 100 years in car manufacturing. Our goal is to make sure that America continues to lead the world in innovation and car manufacturing and do it in a way that is affordable and that can actually be implemented, not this unrealistic, expensive, unaffordable mandate by the EPA on Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). All time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.

The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to be here today, and I remind my colleagues that Communism isn't fought with Communism. That is exactly what this government takeover of our American auto industry is.

I thank, again, Chairwoman Rodgers for her unwavering support of this resolution and her leadership and Leader Scalise for his support on getting this to the floor, as well. They have been leaders not just on this issue, but on so many issues that are important to the livelihoods of Americans.

Again, I acknowledge how personal this moment is for me. My father was just inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame last night. In 1971, he started his trucking company with one truck, one trailer, and no excuses. He had to fight all the way up to the Supreme Court for the next 7 years for the right to be able to travel across State lines. He was a pioneer, not just as an African-American MBE, not just as an African American in the industry, but for all small businesses.

My father fought to deregulate, to preserve the American Dream in the country, and, 50 years later, his son is standing here today fighting to deregulate, to fight for the American Dream in this country, against the burdensome regulations that are choking out jobs from my district and others.

It is the end of September. In the beginning of October, in my district, in Warren, 2,450 UAW jobs are going to be sent from Warren, not to Sterling Heights, but to Saltillo, Mexico, because the automotive industry is in survival mode because of policies just like this.

The audacity of my colleagues on the left to say that we are wasting time. I hope that every single UAW worker who you just quoted, Mr. Ranking Member, hears that you say that we are wasting their time.

We are fast-forwarding right now to what the automotive industry understands is a comply-or-die moment. We must fight for the American middle class that was born in Michigan, and we must fight for the American Dream that so many people feel is dying all over the country.

This tailpipe emissions standard is not just harmful, but it is catastrophic. People with their heads in the clouds in this town, who don't understand the way people are living across this country, need to come to reality.

The reality is the automotive industry itself, if you actually listen, has told you that in order to get to 67 percent compliant of new-vehicle sales, they cannot get there with the current technology or the current infrastructure or the current software without going to battery electric vehicles. Nobody here is against battery electric vehicles, but we are against telling the American people what they can do with their money and when they can do it.

This is why we are here. In 2032, the standard requires 25 percent of all sleeper-cab tractors and 60 percent of light heavy-duty vehicles, your cars and trucks, to have zero emissions. This mandate will cripple the trucking and shipping industries and drive up costs.

Does anybody in this country have a problem with inflation or cost of living? Well, just look to your left, and you will find the source.

In Michigan, the 10th Congressional District alone, we have over 1,000 manufacturing businesses, many tied to the automotive industry. Biden's extreme EV agenda threatens 77,000 manufacturing jobs in my district alone, the number one manufacturing district in the Nation. This is not just bad policy for Michigan. It is bad for the country.

Name a district that doesn't have a dealership, and that dealership is likely the largest philanthropist in your church, to your bake sales, to your Little League team. Guess what is going to happen when they have cars on their lots that they can't sell. Guess what is going to happen with the same policies that spent $7.5 billion for charging stations and only got 7 in 2 years.

Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. I am fairly emotional about the livelihoods of the people who sent me here.

This CRA takes a stand and sends a clear message that we will not abandon our people or our automakers or our autoworkers. Michigan isn't afraid of the future. Republicans are not afraid of the future, but we demand that every American have a part in it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 136. I think about every hardworking American whom Washington has forgotten when we talk about making vehicles that are affordable and making a nation that is competitive.

This isn't about partisanship. It is about common sense. It is called pragmatism.